VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday dismissed the writ petition filed before it seeking recusal of two judges from a case pertaining to the three-capital issue, stating that there is no merit in the application.
Dealing with a writ petition filed by Special Chief Secretary (Municipal Administration) Y Srilakshmi requesting that two judges — Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy and Justice DVSS Somayajulu — recuse themselves from hearing the writ petitions, a three-member division bench comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice M Satyanarayana Murhty and Justice DVSS Somayajulu observed that it is a strange contention not only to browbeat the judges in discharging their duties but also to create fear complex in their minds.
The State government has sought recusal of the two judges on the grounds that they were allotted house plots (6,000 sq yards) by the (previous) government in Nelapadu, which is within the limits of Capital Region Development Authority (now Amaravati Metropolitan Region Development), hence they have financial interest in the subject matter.
The court observed that as per the GO Ms No. 34, the aim of housing policy in Amaravati capital city is to encourage settlement of first settlers (judiciary functionaries/employees, government functionaries/employees, legislature employees, press etc.) in the new city for rapid city development and smooth functioning.
Further, the purpose of purchase of the plot is to facilitate people to settle at Amaravati in view of lack of housing within the Amaravati area, only at the instance of the government and not at the instance of the judges working as on January 24, 201 in the new High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The court, in its order, noted that the same was not mentioned in the affidavit, besides the fact that the judges cannot sell the plots in question and the decision for their allocation is not a matter of the litigations.
The court emphasised that everything associated with the discharge of their duties as well as perks, including their pens with which they write and salaries, are provided by the State. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that judges have pecuniary interest in the transaction specially when the State is a party in most of the litigations.
The bench also found fault with the petitioner for making bald allegations in an irresponsible manner to tarnish the image of the very institution, particularly the judges. “If such practice is allowed, there will not be any need for filing a petition by either of the parties to demand recusal by the judges from hearing the case. It is nothing but bench hunting tactics being adopted by private parties,” it observed.
It said the two judges, asked to recuse themselves, have no direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case. If purchase of 600 sq yards house plot from the government itself creates a pecuniary interest, most of the judges in the High Court, who were allotted house sites, are not entitled to decide any case in which the State is a party. Further, it pointed out that if a judge is recused from hearing the matter, it is nothing but violating the oath of the office administered.
The order stated that Justice Satyanarayana Murthy is likely to retire within a few months and is not bothered about the result of the writ petition as there is no possibility of holding court after retirement. Justice Somayajulu is likely to retire after one year. Both are unmindful of the result of the list of cases pending before the court, it observed.