SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(AP) 809

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.S.MISHRA, S.S.HUSSAINI
District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry - Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer, R and B Department.Rajahmundry, East Godavari District - Respondent
W.P. 12173/96
Decided On : 08-28-96
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. B. Sreeramulu,Mr. M.S.K. Sastry

Headnote:COURTS Undertaking building construction within the court premises - Construction of 1st Floor by the executive for accommodating Members of Bar Association and its liberary in the premises of District Court Building with funds granted by Member of Parliament of the Constituency - Court functions as "State" within the State of AP and exists independent of executive control of either Collector of the District or Engineers - No construction work shall be undertaken within the premises without order in writing by District Judge - State Government is directed to issue necessary instructions for fulfilling their obligations in seeking permission from the District Judge with prior sanction of High Court and necessary administrative approval - Members of the Bar Association as Officers of Court owe duty to the law of the land and refrain from abetting the actions of Collector of the District and Engineers concerned by giving more importance to their vested interests than to the interests of law and independence of judiciary

P. S. MISHRA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry sent a letter no. 8126 dated 8-9-1995 to the Registry of the Court stating that on the existing ground floor of the reading and library room of the Bar Association building at rajahmundry, first floor was being constructed and when enquiries were made, it was revealed that the then local Member of Parliament, Sri K. V. R. Chowdary had granted an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- for tine construction of first floor of the said building and released the said amount in favour of the executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer had taken up the construction work. He further stated that the present Bar Association building was within the control of Judicial Department and that on his initial enquiry, he came to know that the foundation laying ceremony was organised earlier during the time of his predecessor and that no permission had been obtained earlier for construction of first floor. The District Judge further stated that on his further probe, he came to know that no permission of the High Court had been taken for construction of the first floor and that no plans have been submitted by the executive Engineer to the High Court for necessary permission and authorisation. He stated that immediately he had issued instructions to stop the construction work, by which time the construction work was half through. He also stated that the Executive Engineer immediately approached him and has submitted the xerox copies of the estimate and plan prepared by him. The district Judge also reported that there has been quick progress in construction and the roof slab has been laid, but doors and windows etc. , were not fixed. The court instructed the District Judge to seek explanation from the Bar Association and furnish the information on the following: (1) Who permitted construction; (2) Whether any written request for construction either to the District judge or the High Court was made; (3) Who received the money from the Member Parliament funds; (4) Whether Roads and Buildings Department was involved in the construction or any third party was involved; and (5) How could the Executive Engineer proceed with the work without sanction from the High Court. Hie District Judge in answer to the above furnished the following information. (1) No request for the construction of the building had been made either to the District Court or to the High Court; (2) No permission had been given either by the High Court or the District court to start construction; (3) Bar Association explanation mentioned, however, that the foundation stone was laid for the construction of the first floor on 4-2-19% during the tenure of Sri K. B. Siddappa, District Judge, as he then was; (4) Out of the funds made available to the Member of Parliament, rajahmundry, he allotted an amount of Rs. 135 lakhs for the purpose of construction of first floor over the existing library room by giving a letter to the Collector, East Godavari, with whom the funds were available and the Collector gave the necessary administrative sanction to the R and B Department for the construction of the building and the department accordingly had taken up the work; (5) No third party was involved in the construction process of the building.

( 2 ) THE District Judge also informed the Court that the Bar Association had been pleading for additional accommodation owing to the increase in the strength of the members of the Bar, including lady advocates. There was genuine need for additional accommodation. The Court on the administrative side had already taken the need of the additional accommodation in the various courts in the State and asked the District Judges to report about the need of such additional accommodation, including accommodation for the Bar associations. On receipt of the report from the District Judges above, however, in taking up the construction of first floor of a building in the court premises, the registrar










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top