D ASWATHA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the validity and legality of G.O. Ms. No. 87, Law (LA and J Courts A) Department dated 20-3-1997 issued by the first respondent which is the Government of Andhra Pradesh in consultation with the second respondent, which is the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by which the Revenue Mandal of Gorantla in Ananthapur District was deleted from the jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Hindupur and included in the jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Penugonda.

(2.) The petitioners, who are ten in number, are residents of Gorantla Mandal functioning in various capacities such as President and Vice-President of Gorantla Mandal, Praja Parishad, Sarpanches of some Gram Panchayats, President of Gorantia Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, etc. The Revenue Mandal of Gorantia was previously within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif and Subordinate Judge's Court at Hindupur. The first respondent, which is the State of Andhra Pradesh, issued G.O. Ms. No. 87, Law (LA and J Courts A). Department dated 20-3-1997 deleting the Revenue Mandal of Gorantla from the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Hindupur and tagging on the same to the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Penugonda. The High Court, which is the second respondent, issued notification under Sec. 15(1) read with Sec. 21(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act in letter ROC. No. 2093/E.1/94, dated 22-11-1996 similarly deleting the Revenue Mandal of Gorantla from the jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Hindupur and including it in the jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Penugonda. The present writ petition is filed questioning the validity and legality of the said notifications issued by the first and second respondents.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that the residents of Gorantla Revenue Mandal have long standing affinity for Hindupur on account of financial and commercial importance of the said place; that the villages in the said Mandal are nearer to Hindupur than Penugonda, and Hindupur is easily accessible to them by buses; that the litigant public will, therefore, feel it more convenient and suitable to attend Hindupur for prosecuting their litigation than Penugonda, which is not easily accessible to them; that the first and second respondents did not consider all such aspects and issued the above said notifications changing the jurisdiction of Gorantla Mandal; that such notifications issued by the first and second respondents are arbitrary and illegal and that, therefore, the said notifications may be set aside directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to give effect to the said notifications.