Interest Of Litigants To Be Placed Over Convenience Of Advocates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Plea Against Shifting Of Sessions Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by a Bar Association challenging the Government Order which envisages shifting of the Court of VI Additional District Sessions Court, Machilipatnam to Avanigadda.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has while rejecting the request of a Bar Association to not shift a Sessions Court observed that the interest of litigants should be placed over convenience of advocates.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition filed, among others, by the Machilipatnam Bar Association challenging the Government Order which envisages shifting of the Court of VI Additional District Sessions Court, Machilipatnam to Avanigadda along with cases arising out of the territorial jurisdiction of Avanigadda along with the staff attached to it.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed, "It is not out of place here to mention that the Advocates’ profession has been considered to be a noble one, where personal financial interests and convenience are secondary to the main goal of rendering justice to those in need. In the present case, while the shifting of the Court to Avanigadda would lead to some inconvenience to the advocates at Machilipatnam, yet, in our opinion, the interest of the litigants would be subserved upon such a shifting."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Thandava Yogesh while the Respondent was represented by Advocate P S P Suresh Kumar.
The Petitioners challenged the Government Order on the grounds firstly that the said Court was dealing with cases pertaining to senior citizens and therefore shifting of the said Court from Machilipatnam to Avanigadda would severely prejudice the interest of the senior citizens, who would be inconvenienced in pursuing their cases at Avanigadda. Secondly, instead of shifting the Court to Avanigadda, steps should have been taken for setting up a new Court at Avanigadda which would have been in accord with the Apex Court's judgment rendered in the case of All India Judges’ Association and others vs. Union of India and others. Thirdly, that Avanigadda was prone to facing floods during rainy seasons which would lead to inconvenience to the litigant public and fourthly, that by shifting of the Court to Avanigadda the lives of the members of the Bar Association would be affected negatively.
The stand taken in the affidavits filed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh and also the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Krishna District is that the shifting of the VI Additional District Sessions Court from Machilipatnam to Avanigadda could neither be said to be irrational nor arbitrary, but was ordered with a view to address the inconvenience which the litigants from the Avanigadda area were facing in pursuing their cases at Machilipatnam.
On the other hand, Machilipatnam Bar Association, in the representation stated that a new Additional District Court may be established at Avanigadda rather than shifting one of the Courts from Machilipatnam.
The High Court, however, resolved that the Court of VI Additional District Sessions Judge’s Court, Machilipatnam be shifted to Avanigadda. Thereafter the impugned Government Order was issued.
The Court was of the view that the concern of the Bar members that the shifting of the Court to Avanigadda would affect the interests of senior citizens also does not have any sound basis, as all these cases will still be dealt with by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Machilipatnam.
"It is worth mentioning that the distance between Avanigadda and Machilipatnam is approximately 35 km. Litigants from the Avanigadda area would be relieved from having to traverse that distance to file their cases on each and every date of hearing. The justice dispensation system exists for the benefit of litigants, whose convenience and concerns weigh with the higher judiciary in taking decisions, including the decision regarding the shifting of the Court. While it is true that advocates affiliated with the Bar Association in Machilipatnam would now have to travel to Avanigadda, when considering the balance of convenience, we believe the convenience of the litigants would weigh more than that of the advocates," the Court observed.
Cause Title: Machilipatnam Bar Association and others vs. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and others (APHC010248812024)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Thandava Yogesh
Respondent- Advocate P S P Suresh Kumar, Government Pleader Hemanth Kumar Vemuri
