Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J., R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
Praja Samkshema Seva Sangham – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Home Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (PIL) No. 57 of 2024
Decided On : 13-03-2024
(A) Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 - Sections 5, 47, 53, 68, and 71 - Petition for Mandamus to extend the tenure of Hyderabad as common capital for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana - Court held that it cannot direct the Executive to legislate or frame policies, emphasizing the separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. (Paras 11-16)
(B) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that it cannot usurp the functions of the Executive or Legislature, and its role is limited to ensuring actions are within constitutional limits. (Paras 12-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to extend the common capital status of Hyderabad for another 10 years, citing incomplete apportionment of assets and liabilities under the Act, 2014.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing the separation of powers and the limits of judicial intervention in legislative matters.
Issues: Whether the court can mandate the Executive to legislate for extending the capital status of Hyderabad.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it cannot direct the Executive to adopt a particular policy or the Legislature to enact laws, reinforcing the doctrine of separation of powers.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J.
1. This is a petition filed purportedly in public interest in which the petitioner seeks a Mandamus to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to take necessary steps to make laws for extending the tenure of Greater Hyderabad City as a common capital for the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for a further period of 10 years i.e. till 2034, till the process of apportionment is completed under Sections 47, 53 and 68 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 (in short, 'the Act, 2014').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Parliament of India had enacted the Act of 2014, Section 3 whereof envisaged that, on and from the 'appointed date', there would be formed a new State known as State of Telangana comprising the territories of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh as mentioned in Section 3 of the Act, 2014.
It is not out of place to mention that by virtue of notification dated 04.03.2024 issued by the Government of India which was published in the Gazette of India on the same date, the Second of June, 2014, was notified as 'the appointed day' for purposes of the Act, 2014.
3. Section 4 of the said Act envisaged that, on and from the appointed day, the State of Andhra Pradesh shall comprise the territories of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh other than those specified in Section 3 the Act, 2014.
4. Section 5 of the Act, 2014, envisaged as under:
(1) On and from the appointed day, Hyderabad in the existing State of Andhra Pradesh, shall be the common capital of the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh for such period not exceeding ten years.
(2) After expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (1), Hyderabad shall be the capital of the State of Telangana and there shall be a new capital for the State of Andhra Pradesh."
5. Section 47 of the Act, 2014, inter-alia envisaged the apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh immediately before the appointed day to secure just, reasonable and equitable apportionment of the assets and liabilities amongst the successor States. According to Section 2(j) of the Act, 2014, 'Successor State' is defined as under:
6. Section 47(4) of the Act, 2014, further envisaged that, in case of any dispute regarding the amount of financial assets and liabilities, the same would be settled through mutual agreement, failing which it would be settled by the order of the Central Government on the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India.
7. Section 53 of the Act, 2014, envisaged the apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the State undertakings, whereas Section 68(1) of the Act, 2014, envisaged that those companies and corporations specified in the Ninth Schedule constituted for the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function in those areas in respect of which they were functioning immediately before that day, subject to the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, 2014, whereas Section 68(2) envisages the apportionment of the assets, rights and liabilities of the companies and corporations referred to Section 68(1) in the manner provided under Section 53 of the Act, 2014.
8. Section 71 of the Act, 2014, further envisages that the Central Government may issue directions for each of the companies specified in the Ninth Schedule regarding the interests and shares of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh in the Company between the successor States as also regarding the reconstitution of the Board of Directors of the Company so as to give adequate representation to the successor States.
9. The entire case of the petitioner is that since the entire process of apportionment of assets and liabiliti
The court cannot mandate the Executive to legislate or frame policies, reinforcing the separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
Legislature has no legislative competence to pass any resolution/law for change of capital or bifurcating or trifurcating the capital city Notified Master Plan cannot be modified suo motu.
A State Legislature cannot confer jurisdiction on courts outside its territory, reaffirming that laws made by a State are confined within its territorial limits, as per Articles 245 and 246 of the Co....
Exclusion of states from delimitation under impugned notifications is valid; Article 170 provides constitutional freeze until post-2026 census data is published, preventing enforceable right to delim....
(1) Appointment of Chief Secretary of NCTD – GNCTD only has power to propose a candidate for appointment as Chief Secretary – Lieutenant Governor is bound to refer proposal to Central Government and ....
liabilities of the operational Units of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation - Power of Union of India - limited power conferred on the Union of India under Section 71 is to is....
Court affirmed the preservation of federalism under Article 3 of the Constitution, rejecting the challenge to its constitutional validity while maintaining separation of powers.
The classification of municipal posts based on population percentages must adhere strictly to constitutional mandates and cannot be altered through arbitrary administrative decisions.
The court ruled that the Ordinance dissolving elected municipal bodies without legislative consent violates constitutional provisions, affirming the principle that municipalities must continue until ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
