D. Aswatha Reddy and Others vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Others

R. Bayapureddy, J.—This writ petition is filed questioning the validity and legality of G.O. Ms. No. 87, Law (LA & 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.

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 & 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 u/s 15(1) read with Section 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.

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.

The second respondent, which is the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, tiled its counter through its Registrar contending-that in view of the representation made by the Bar Association of Penugonda for inclusion of the Revenue Mandal of Gorantla within the jurisdiction of Penugonda for the various reasons urged by them in their representation, the report of the District Judge, Ananthapur was called for relating to all relevant aspects, and on the basis of the report of the. District Judge and in view of the various factors, such as, heavy pendency in the District Munsif Court and Subordinate Judge''s Court at Hindupur and less pendency of cases in the Courts at Penugonda, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh felt that it will be just and proper to delete Gorantla Revenue Mandal from the jurisdiction of the District Munsif and Subordinate Judge''s Court at Hindupur and include it within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Penugonda and accordingly recommended the same to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, thereafter, issued the above said notification changing the jurisdiction of Gorantla Revenue Mandal thereby deleting the Revenue Mandal of Gorantla from the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Hindupur and including it in the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge''s Court at Penugonda and the High Court also similarly issued notification deleting Gorantla Revenue Mandal from the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, Hindupur and including the same in the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, Penugonda and the said two notifications were published in the A. P. Gazette Extraordinary on 31-3-1997, and that the writ therefore has no substance and is liable to be dismissed.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Bar Association of Penugonda was impleaded as third respondent and the President of the said Bar Association filed an affidavit contending that the above said notifications issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh changing the jurisdiction of the Revenue Mandal of Gorantla are just and proper and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the said notifications and that the writ is liable to be dismissed.

It is seen from the material on record that the Subordinate Judge''s Court was established at Penugonda many years ago and it was made permanent in the year 1983 and the Revenue Mandal of Gorantla was previously within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge''s Court at Penugonda till a separate Subordinate Judge''s Court was recently established at Hindupur in the year 1995. The District Munsif Court at Penugonda was established as long back as in 1908 and the District Munsif Court at Hindupur was established only in 1966. Prior to the establishment of the said Courts at Hindupur, the litigant public of Gorantla Mandal were used to attending the Courts at Penugonda. Penugonda is the Head-quarters of Revenue Division as well as the police division, and Gorantla is within the said jurisdiction even at present. These facts are mentioned in the affidavit of third respondent which are not denied by the petitioners by filing any reply affidavit. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the litigant public of Gorantla Mandal will find it more convenient to attend the Court at Hindupur than at Penugonda; that the convenience and interest of the public of Gorantla Mandal are not taken into consideration before the jurisdiction is changed by the above said notifications and that, therefore, the notifications are arbitrary and bad in law. Such contention cannot, however, be accepted in view of the various facts and circumstances revealed from the material on record.

On receipt of a written representation from the Bar Association of Penugonda, the High Court called for the remarks of the District Judge, Ananthapur on various aspects relating to the feasibility and desirability of inclusion of Gorantla Mandal within the jurisdiction of Penugonda District Munsif, and the District Judge submitted his report to the High Court giving particulars of various factors, such as, pendency of civil and criminal cases in the Courts at Hindupur and Penugonda, the distance between the Revenue Mandal of Gorantla and Hindupur on the one hand and Gorantla and Penugonda on the other hand, the convenience of the litigant public, etc. It is mentioned by the District Judge in his report, which was made available to us along with other relevant records for perusal, that the pendency of cases is very heavy at Hindupur, whereas, the pendency in the Courts at Penugonda is considerably low and that in case the Revenue Mandal of Gorantla is deleted from the jurisdiction of the Courts at Hindupur and tagged on to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Penugonda, there will be sufficient work for the Courts at Penugonda and such change of jurisdiction will also facilitate the quick disposal of cases including the old pendency. It is also mentioned by the District Judge in his report regarding the convenience of the litigant public that the distance from Gorantla to Hindupur and from Gorantla to Penugonda is almost the same though the present bus convenience from Gorantla to Hindupur is better than that of Penugonda. The District Judge has categorically observed in his report that it is desirable to tag on the jurisdiction of Gorantla Mandal to the jurisdiction of the District Munsif and Subordinate Judge''s Courts at Penugonda in the interest of justice and speedy disposal of cases and also to give sufficient work to the Courts at Penugonda. The said report of the District Judge, Ananthapur along with the other relevant material was also placed before the Hon''ble Portfolio Judge incharge of Ananthapur District and he also came to the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to change the jurisdiction of Gorantla Mandal from the Courts at Hindupur to the Courts at Penugonda. The Administrative Committee of the High Court also scrutinised the relevant material on record including the report of the District Judge, Ananthapur and recommended for the said change of jurisdiction. On the basis of such material and in view of such circumstances, the High Court recommended to the Government for changing the jurisdiction and the Government agreed with the High Court and accordingly issued the above said G.G. Ms. No. 87, Law (LA & J Courts A). Department dated 20-3-1997 effecting change of jurisdiction relating to Gorantla Mandal by deleting it from the jurisdiction of Subordinate Judge''s Court at Hindupur and including it in the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge''s Court at Penugonda. The High Court also issued the above said notifications changing the jurisdiction of Gorantla Mandal from the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court at Hindupur to the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court at Penugonda. It is clear from all such circumstances that the High Court on its administrative side took into consideration various factors including the convenience of the litigant public, pendency of various cases in the Courts at Hindupur and Penugonda and the desirability of reducing the heavy pendency in the Courts at Hindupur and giving sufficient work to the Courts at Penugonda, and took steps to change the jurisdiction. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the notifications issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh are arbitrary and illegal, nor can it be said that such change of jurisdiction was effected without taking into consideration the convenience of the litigant public of Gorantla.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, tries to contend that various villages in Gorantla Mandal are having easy access by buses to Hindupur compared to Penugonda and the litigant public will be finding it more convenient to reach Hindupur and prosecute their litigations than to go to Penugonda, which is not so easily accessible to them. He has also tried to contend that there are more number of buses plying between Gorantla and Hindupur than between Gorantla and Penugonda and that the High Court and the Government of Andhra Pradesh have not taken those circumstances into consideration before changing the jurisdiction. But this contention cannot be accepted. It is seen from the report of the District Judge including the map showing the various mandals that Penugonda is almost at the same distance to Gorantla as well as Hindupur. Even if it is to be said that the distance from Penugonda to some villages in Gorantla Mandal is more than the distance from Hindupur to those villages, such distance will not exceed more than 15-20 k.ms. and such distance cannot be the sole criteria for deciding the question of jurisdiction when so many other circumstances are pointing out towards the necessity and desirability of such change of jurisdiction. The District Judge has specifically pointed out in his report regarding the convenience of litigant public that the distance from Gorantla to Hindupur and Gorantla to Penugonda is almost the same even though the bus convenience from Gorantla to Hindupur is better than that of Penugonda. As far as the bus convenience is concerned, it is not a permanent feature, and in case and if it is felt that there is any increase in the flow of traffic, it will not be difficult for introducing a few more buses to make it convenient for the public to reach Penugonda. It is seen from the material on record that the major factor for changing the jurisdiction is the pendency of cases in this Courts at both the places and the desirability of reducing such existing pendency as well as the possible future pendency in different types of cases. It is clear from the report of the District Judge that the pendency in the Courts at Hindupur is very heavy while the pendency in the Courts at Penugonda is very low. In order to reduce such pendency in the Courts at Hindupur and to provide sufficient work to the Courts at Penugonda thereby achieving equal distribution of work among the Courts at the two places, it is desirable that Gorantla Mandal shall be deleted from the jurisdiction of the Courts at Hindupur and tagged on to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Penugonda. Taking all such circumstances into consideration and keeping in view the interest of the litigant public, the High Court on its administrative side recommended to the Government for the change of such jurisdiction in the interest of administration of justice and the Government accordingly accepted the same and issued the relevant notification. There are no mala fides in the action of respondents 1 and 2 in effecting such change of jurisdiction which was done only in the interest of the litigant public. As such the said notification cannot be considered as arbitrary and illegal nor can it be said that they are not in the interest of the litigant public. Under these circumstances, there are no valid reasons to interfere with such change of jurisdiction of the Courts effected by respondents 1 and 2 and there are no merits in the present writ petition.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.