SARSANI SATYAM REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a designated Senior Advocate of this Court, has come up with the present writ petition complaining about the inaction on the part of the different stakeholders in (1) not appointing a regular Chief Justice for the past about 22 months; (2) not filling up of the vacancies to the sanctioned strength; (3) not maintaining the ratio of 2:1 for elevation from the Bar and the service; (4) not appointing any Member of the Bar of the State of Telangana for the past 4 years and (5) consequently not fulfilling the obligations imposed under various Articles of the Constitution.

(2.) Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B. Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General took notice on behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr. S. Sriram, learned standing counsel took notice on behalf of the High Court to the limited extent of examining the question as to whether the writ petition can be entertained in the facts and circumstances that we shall deal with.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner can be summarised in simple terms as follows: