P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the Counsel on record.

( 2 ) THE core question argued in elaboration by both the Counsel, Counsel for appellant/writ petitioner and the Standing counsel for Central Government at the stage of admission of this Writ Appeal is the question whether the High Court of Andhra pradesh has jurisdiction to entertain Writ petition. Incidentally, the merits and demerits of the matter also has been touched by the respective Counsel. The Counsel for appellant contended that since part of cause of action arose at Kurnool District in State of andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High court has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ petition and dismissal of the same on the ground of maintainability cannot be sustained and hence the Writ Petition may have to be remitted back to the learned single Judge to decide the matter afresh on merits. Strong reliance was placed on dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army staff and the learned Counsel also made an attempt to distinguish the decision in Kusum ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India #2 on facts.

( 3 ) ON the contrary, the learned Central government Standing Counsel while controverting the same however would maintain tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document