A three-judge bench of the High Court, comprising Justices Rakesh Kumar, A.V. Sesha Sai and M. Satyanarayana Murthy, refused to conduct a piecemeal hearing of the writ petitions filed against the Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Bill and APCRDA Repeal Bill and their reintroduction by the government, saying that when a situation is developing, all the matters have to be taken up together.
They gave liberty to a petitioner's counsel to implead the Accountant-General to let them know about the costs involved in the construction of the capital and how much has been spent on it so far.
Making these observations, the court posted the matters for a fresh hearing on August 6.
When a counsel argued that the court may take up a petition filed for the construction of a permanent High Court building in Amaravati, the judges refused, commenting that if the State succeeds in the litigation, the High Court location could be changed and therefore there could not be any adjudication of the said writ petition at this juncture.
AG’s observation
Appearing for the State, Advocate-General S. Sriram told the court that a counter affidavit filed in the matter revealed that locating the capital in Amaravati entailed a minimal expenditure of ₹1.50 lakh crore.
The court directed the parties contesting the writ petition that was filed in 2018 challenging the competence of the State to decide on the capital, to file their counters to facilitate necessary action.
The High Court was hearing a batch of petitions that questioned the validity of the impugned Bills, which aimed at dividing the existing one into Executive, Legislative and Judicial capitals proposed to be developed at Visakhapatnam, Amaravati and Kurnool respectively.
This is being stiffly resisted by all opposition parties, farmers, who gave their lands under the pooling scheme for developing a green-field capital in Amaravati, and various civil society organisations.
