VIJAYAWADA: A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday dismissed supplementary petitions filed by two organisations, representing the Amaravati farmers, challenging the court’s previous verdicts with regard to restrictions imposed on the Amaravati to Arasavalli Maha Padayatra.Under the aegis of the Amaravati Parirakshana Samithi, the farmers have undertaken the walkathon demanding Amaravati be made the sole capital of the State.
The court also dismissed main petitions filed by the organisations challenging the single-judge orders.
The high court had earlier given permission for the Maha Padayatra, but with riders. On September 9, it issued orders restricting the number of farmers participating in the Maha Padayatra to 600 only. On October 21, the court clarified that people extending solidarity to the Amaravati farmers cannot take part in the walkathon.The two organisations, Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshana Samithi and Amaravati Rajadhani Samikarana Rythu Samakhya, later filed supplementary pleas, seeking admission of their petitions for hearing.
Observing that neither of the organisations are connected to the Maha Padayatra, the bench—comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice DVSS Somayajulu—that heard the pleas recently raised an objection as to how a third party can file an appeal. Representing the petitioners, senior counsel KS Murthy informed the court that they have the right to participate in the Padayatra. Murthy told the bench that the Padayatra was taken up by the farmers who gave their lands for the establishment of the capital so that they can convey their problems to the government.
Arguing that it is common to express resentment against the government in a democracy, Murthy said allowing only 600 people to participate in the Padayatra was restricting them.The bench intervened and said people file such petitions to prove that they are supporting the farmers’ cause and it is common in politics.
When the counsel said farmers were taking part in the rally, the judges said they do not know who are farmers and politicians. Further, the bench refused to accept the petitions and said it would issue orders explaining the grounds on which the petitions were dismissed.