Andhra Pradesh High Court: A petition was filed by the Machilipatnam Bar Association, challenging the government order issued by the Law (L & LA) (Home-Courts) Department on 05-02-2024 envisaging the shifting of the VI Additional District Sessions Court from Machilipatnam to Avanigadda, along with all cases arising from the territorial jurisdiction of Avanigadda and the staff attached to the Court. A division bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ., and Ravi Cheemalapati, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that the decision to shift the Court from Machilipatnam to Avanigadda was neither irrational nor arbitrary as it was intended to serve the convenience of litigants.
The petitioners challenged the government order primarily on the grounds that the Court was handling cases concerning senior citizens and its relocation would cause significant inconvenience to them. Additionally, the petitioners contended that a new Court should have been established in Avanigadda instead of transferring the existing one, citing All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247. The concerns regarding Avanigadda being a flood-prone area and the potential adverse impact on members of the Machilipatnam Bar Association were also raised.
In response, counter-affidavits were submitted on behalf of Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Krishna District. The respondents justified the decision by emphasizing the need to alleviate the difficulties faced by litigants from Avanigadda, who were compelled to travel to Machilipatnam to attend hearings. The Court noted that the Avanigadda Bar Association had submitted a requisition for the Court’s relocation on 17-09-2022, and the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Krishna District supported the proposal, recognizing the necessity for a District and Sessions Court in Avanigadda. Although the Machilipatnam Bar Association subsequently suggested establishing a new Court in Avanigadda instead, the High Court, upon reviewing both representations and the Principal District Judge’s remarks, resolved to shift the VI Additional District Sessions Court to Avanigadda. It was also resolved that the cases of senior citizens would be tried by the IX Additional District and Sessions Court at Machilipatnam.
The Court’s observations underscored that the primary objective of the relocation was to serve the litigants’ convenience. As of December 2022, around 490 cases originating from the seven mandals in Avanigadda were pending, which had increased to 615 cases by the time the affidavits were filed. The Court emphasized that the justice system exists to serve litigants, and their convenience outweighed the inconvenience caused to advocates. While acknowledging the noble nature of the legal profession, the Court reiterated that advocates’ personal interests must remain secondary to the paramount goal of delivering justice. Furthermore, the apprehension regarding Avanigadda being a flood-prone area was dismissed as the region had not experienced severe flooding in approximately 45 years.
The Court also acknowledged the petitioners’ argument about the low judge-to-population ratio and the need for expanding the judiciary’s cadre strength. However, it maintained that short-term measures like the Court’s relocation were necessary until systemic improvements were achieved. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the petitioners’ claims and upheld the government order. The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs, with all pending miscellaneous applications deemed closed.
[Machilipatnam Bar Association v. APHC, 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1069, decided on 21-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Thandava Yogesh
Advocates for Respondents: Mr. P S P Suresh Kumar, Hemant Kumar Vemuri, GP for Law Legislative Affairs
