VIJAYAWADA: The AP High Court on Monday announced that it will conduct daily hearings from November 2 on the main petitions pertaining to the Amaravati capital issue. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice JK Maheshwari, Justice Rakesh Kumar and Justice Satyanarayana Murthy, said the main pleas will be classified subject-wise and daily hearings taken up since hearings on the supplementary petitions have concluded. The daily hearings will be conducted in hybrid (either through video conference or in person) mode from November 2.
In an interesting turn, the bench also accepted the objections of the State government to making Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and ministers Buggana Rajendranath Reddy and Botcha Satyanarayana as respondents in one of the petitions. Nonetheless, it clarified that if necessary, their responses or explanation may be called for. In some respite to the government, the bench accepted its contention that the Chief Minister’s camp-office may be opened anywhere. This followed after the petitioner in question informed the court that they would limit their arguments to the necessity of retaining the CM’s permanent office in Amaravati itself.
However, the court extended status quo on decentralising the capital and issued interim orders prohibiting the government from spending money in the name of providing basic infrastructure in Kurnool, Vizag and Amaravati. It also clarified that the status quo continues on distribution of house sites in Amaravati as the relevant GO has been suspended.
When legislative affairs secretary’s advocate Chandrasekhar informed the court that they were prepared to submit footage of the proceedings in the Legislative Council on the day the CRDA (Repeal) Bill and Decentralisation Bill came up under controversial circumstances, the court directed him to do so.
Status quo on guest house in Vizag
The High Court on Monday reserved its orders on the status quo over construction of a guest house in Vizag. Advocate General S Sriram argued that the petitioner’s contention that the guest house was proposed to be built as part of the three-capital decision was not correct. However, the court extended status quo on the guest house issue