Andhra Pradesh government objects to GITAM plea seeking status quo

Though a hearing on the petition of GITAM was conducted on Monday night, following the objection from the government, it was adjourned to Tuesday. 
TDP leaders inspect demolished main gate and compound wall of GITAM deemed to be University in Visakhapatnam. (Photo | G Satyanarayana, EPS)
TDP leaders inspect demolished main gate and compound wall of GITAM deemed to be University in Visakhapatnam. (Photo | G Satyanarayana, EPS)

VIJAYAWADA: The State government on Tuesday objected to the appeal filed by Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management (GITAM) Deemed to be University in the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking the status quo before the demolition of structures on the varsity premises by the Visakhapatnam district administration.

Though a hearing on the petition of GITAM was conducted on Monday night, following the objection from the government, it was adjourned to Tuesday. 

Appearing before the division bench comprising Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy and Justice K Lalitha, Additional Advocate General P Sudhakar Reddy argued that an appeal filed by GITAM group of institutions secretary BV Mohan Rao does not merit hearing and pointed out that the High Court on Saturday had issued orders refraining the Visakhapatnam district administration from proceeding with demolition.  

The AAG informed the court that in 1996, CCLA had decided that GITMA does not require 71 acres and that 49 acres are sufficient, which saw the then collector reclaiming 22.85 acres given to GITAM. But within 15 days, those 22 acres are given back to GITAM. 

Stating that demolitions were carried out without issuing notices to them in the first place, advocate Rudraprasad, appearing for GITAM, sought time for submitting the details with regard to the objections raised by the government. The division bench adjourned hearing of the petition to October 29. 

‘Appeal illegal’

Calling the petition illegal, the AAG said the Single Judge, in his orders, had mentioned that GITAM has sought 10 days time for producing additional documents. He argued that after getting an interim stay order in a supplementary petition and again appealing on the same subject is against the Supreme Court guidelines. 

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com