The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday refused to grant an interim order to stop the state government from moving the district headquarters of Annamayya district from Rayachoti to Madanapalle. The court, however, directed the government to submit a counter affidavit explaining its decision.
PIL Challenges Government's Decision
The court's decision came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one B Venkata Narayana Reddy. The petitioner challenged the state administration's move to relocate the Annamayya district headquarters. Advocate C Sumon, representing the petitioner, argued that the government's process was flawed.
Sumon stated that while the government initially issued a notification seeking objections for the creation of a new Madanapalle district, the final notification instead shifted the existing Annamayya district headquarters from Rayachoti to Madanapalle. He contended that this change in plan required a separate call for objections, which was not done.
Legal and Financial Grounds of Opposition
The petitioner's counsel raised two primary concerns. First, he argued that the decision violated the AP District Formation Act of 1974. Second, he highlighted the financial implications of the move.
"The government did not show any valid reasons for shifting the headquarters from Rayachoti, which was formed in 2022," Sumon told the court. He emphasized that a huge amount of public money had been spent on developing infrastructure in Rayachoti. He warned that this investment would be wasted if offices were shifted, leading to fresh expenditure in Madanapalle.
Court's Observations and Order
A bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Challa Gunaranjan heard the arguments. The bench observed that there was no statutory obligation for the government to call for fresh objections merely for changing a district headquarters.
The court noted that such decisions fall under the government's administrative purview, and judicial intervention is limited. In a significant remark, the bench suggested that if infrastructure in Rayachoti were vacated, the judiciary could consider utilizing it for its own purposes.
Declining to issue an interim restraint order, the court issued formal notices to the state government to file its counter. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing after four weeks.
