IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Prashant Kumar Mishra, M. Satyanarayana Murthy, D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, JJ.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Chief Secretary – Petitioner
Versus
Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshana Samithi and others – Respondents
I.A.No.01 of 2021 in W.P.No.13203 of 2020
Decided On : 03-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 217 and 219 - Completion of house/flat construction by the allottees - Sale deeds - Alleged in petition along with sale deeds in favour of other twelve judges as a policy decision. Would it create any pecuniary interest in the litigation is to be examined by this Court in view of serious allegations made against the two judges is necessary to refer to the contents of various documents filed before this Court - Common High Court proposing to allot house sites to Hon’ble Judges, Judicial Officers and Staff working in the High court of Andhra Pradesh - In response to said letter, Registrar General addressed a letter to Secretary to Government (Political), General Administration Department, A.P. Secretariat stating that proposal to allot house sites to Hon’ble Judges, Judicial Officers and staff working in High Court of Andhra Pradesh was accepted by Administrative Committee decision of the Administrative Committee was also placed before Full Court and the Full Court has approved decision of the Administrative Committee.
Finding of the Court: Oath of office taken under Article 219 of Constitution of India enjoins Judge to duly and faithfully and to best of his knowledge and judgment, perform the duties of office without fear or favour affection or ill will while upholding constitution and laws - Where unfounded and motivated allegations of bias are sought to be made with a view of forum hunting / Bench preference or brow-beating the Court, then, succumbing to such a pressure would tantamount to not fulfilling the oath of office – Court have come across instances where one could simply throw a stone on a Judge and later on cite the gratuitous attack as ground to ask to recuse himself from hearing a case in which he would be appearing. Such conduct is bound to cause deep hurt to Judge concerned, but what is of far greater importance is that it defies the very fundamentals of administration of justice - Motivated application for recusal therefore needs to be dealt with sternly and should be viewed ordinarily as interference in the due course of justice leading to penal consequences - Both are unmindful of result of the lis pending before us and we are bound to discharge our duties without fear, favour, fervour or ill-will and as per oath we took under Article 219 of Constitution of India.
Result: Application is therefore dismissed.
ORDER :
1. A “sincere” senior most I.A.S. officer, who is working as Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Y.Srilakshmi, who is familiar to the public of both states i.e. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for her honesty while discharging her duties, filed this petition with a request to two judges out of three judges viz. Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy and Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu to recuse/withdraw from hearing the writ petitions and to prove their qualification to hear the lis pending before this Court on the ground that two judges i.e. Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy and Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu were allotted house plot of an extent of 600 Sq.Yards each by the Government in Nelapadu, which is within the limits of Capital Region Development Authority, now Amaravati Metropolitan Region Development Authority and thereby have financial interest in the subject matter. There is a possibility of increase or decrease of value of the land depending upon the result of the writ petitions and proposed shifting of High Court from Nelapadu to Kurnool will have its own impact on the value of the property possessed by two judges on allotment by the then Government, requested to recuse/withdraw from hearing of the case.
2. The major ground urged before this Court is that two judges i.e. Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy and Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu have a “pecuniary interest” in the litigation. It is no doubt true that these judges purchased property by paying Rs.30,00,000/- i.e. prevailing market value. The land was not allotted by the State on a concessional price to these two Judges alone, but is based on the market value and is the result of an allotment to 14 Judges in all. The State executed a sale deed in favour of two judges as alleged in the petition along with sale deeds in favour of other twelve judges as a policy decision. Would it create any pecuniary interest in the litigation is to be examined by this Court in view of the serious allegations made against the two judges? At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the contents of various documents filed before this Court.
3. Background facts which are not mentioned in the affidavit :
On 08.12.2018, the Secretary to Government (Political), General Administration Department, A.P. Secretariat addressed a letter vide Ltr.No.GAD01PERSOMISC/194/SC.E/2018 to the Common High Court proposing to allot house sites to the Hon’ble Judges, Judicial Officers and Staff working in the High court of Andhra Pradesh. In response to the said letter, the Registrar General addressed a letter to the Secretary to Government (Political), General Administration Department, A.P.Secretariat stating that the proposal to allot house sites to the Hon’ble Judges, Judicial Officers and staff working in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was accepted by the Administrative Committee on 14.02.2019, and the decision of the Administrative Committee was also placed before Full Court and the Full Court has approved the decision of the Administrative Committee on 20.02.2019.
4. State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.34 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (CRDA.2) Department dated 24.01.2019. A copy of it is annexed to the petition. The said G.O.Ms.NO.34 dated 24.01.2019 was issued to allot house sites to various officials and the preamble of the said Government Order is as follows:
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.