IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 and 78 of 2022

W.P.(PIL). No.53 of 2022:

Akilapaksham Committee,

Hindupur, Hindupur Mandal,

Ananthapur District,

Rep. by its Convenor T. Balaji Manohar.

... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by its Chief Secretary,

Secretariat Buildings, A.P. Secretariat,

Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and five others.

…Respondents

Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy, Counsel for petitioner.

Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State, a/w. GP

for GAD, Counsel for respondent No.1; GP for Finance and Planning,

Counsel for respondent No.3; GP for Revenue, Counsel f or

respondent Nos.4 and 5 and None for respondent No.6.

W.P(PIL). No.59 of 2022:

Zilla Kendra Sadhana Samithi, Annamayya District,

Rep. by the Convenor Tharigopula Lakshminarayana,

S/o Late Narasimhulu, Aged 59 years,

Hindu, Advocate, R/o Door No 6/445-B-1,

Chaitanya Nagar, R. S. Road,

Rajampeta Municipal Town and Mandal, Kadapa District, A.P.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 2

... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by the Chief Secretary,

General Administration Department (GAD),

Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,

Guntur District and seven others.

…Respondents

Mr. S. Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State, a/w, GP

for GAD, Counsel for respondent No.1; GP for Revenue, Counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 6; GP for Municipal Adm. and Urban Dev.,

Counsel for respondent No.3; GP for Panchayat Raj and Rural Dev.,

Counsel for respondent Nos.4, 7 and 8 and GP for Finance and

Planning, Counsel for respondent No.5.

W.P.(PIL). No.71 of 2022:

Yarramsetti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Ramaraju,

S/o. Suryanarayana, aged about 46 years,

Occ. Politician, R/o. D.No.33-1-44/1,

Kavala Vari Savaram, Muchimilli Post,

Ramachandrapuram Mandal , East Godavari District, A. P.

... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by the Chief Secretary,

General Administration Department (GAD),

Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, and seven others.

…Respondents

Mr. Srinivasa Rao Narra, Counsel for petitioner.

Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State, a/w, GP

for GAD, Counsel for respondent No.1; GP for Revenue, Counsel for

respondent Nos.2, 6 and 8; GP for Municipal Adm. and Urban Dev.,

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 3

Counsel for respondent No.3; GP for Panchayat Raj and Rural Dev.,

Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 7; GP for Finance and Planning,

Counsel for respondent No.5 and None for respondent No.6.

W.P(PIL). No.77 of 2022:

Advocates Joint Action Committee Of Rajampet,

Railway Koduru and Nandaluru Advocates Bar Associations,

Rep. by its Convenor,

Doddipalli Chaya Devi @ Y Chaya Devi, W/o Karunakara Raju,

Aged about 59 years, Advocate, R/o. H. No. 1-10,

S. Errapalli village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District.

... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by the Chief Secretary,

General Administration Department (GAD),

Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and seven others.

…Respondents

Mr. V. V. L. N. Sarma, Counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State, a/w, GP

for GAD, Counsel for respondent No.1; GP for Revenue, Counsel for

respondent Nos.2, 6 and 8; GP for Municipal Adm. and Urban Dev.,

Counsel for respondent No.3; GP for Panchayat Raj and Rural Dev.,

Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 7; GP for Finance and Planning,

Counsel for respondent No.5.

W.P(PIL). No.78 of 2022:

Sadhu Subramanyam Panth , S/o S V Krishnaiah,

Age 60 years, Occ. Chartered Accountant,

Address D. No. 4-321, Travelers Bungalow Street,

Rajampet, Annamayya District, A. P. & three others.

... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by the Chief Secretary,

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 4

General Administration Department (GAD),

Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,

Guntur District and five others.

…Respondents

Mr. V. V. Lakshmi Narayana, Counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State, a/w, GP

for GAD, Counsel for respondent No.1; GP for Revenue, Counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 4; GP for Finance and Planning, Counsel for

respondent No.3.

DATE :04.04.2024

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ :

W.P.(PIL).No. 53 of 2022 has been filed challenging the

decision of the State Government in declaring Hindupur

parliamentary constituency as Sri Satya Sai District and locating

the District Headquarters at Puttaparthy. The petitioner further

prays for writ of mandamus for declaring Hindupur parliamentary

constituency as a District instead of Sri Satya Sai District and to

locate the District Headquarte rs at Hindupur instead of

Puttaparthy.

W.P(PIL) Nos.59, 77 & 78 of 2022 have been filed challenging

the action of the Government in declaring Annamayya District with

its Headquarters at Rayachoti and instead it is prayed that

Rajampet be declared as Headquarters for Annamayya District.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 5

In W.P(PIL) No.71 of 2022, the petitioner challenges the

merger of Ramachandrapuram into newly formed Konaseema

District. The contention of the petitioner is that the said area ought

to have been a part of Kakinada District.

In all these petitions, the petitioners allege violation of

principles of natural justice as also violation of the provisions of the

Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act”) and the rules framed thereunder. Briefly

stated the material facts are as under:

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh was formed in the year 1956

under the States Reorganization Act, 1956. Thereafter, in terms of

the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, the erstwhile State of Andhra

Pradesh was divided into the newly formed State of Telangana and

the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh with 13 districts, namely,

East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Prakasam, SPSR

Nellore, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, Kurnool,

Chittoor, YSR Kadapa and Anantapur.

3. According to Section 3 (1) of the Act, the Government may,

by notification, for purposes of revenue administration, divide the

State into such districts with such limits as may be specified

therein and further that each district shall consist of such revenue

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 6

divisions and each revenue division shall consist of such mandals

and each Mandal shall consist of villages as the Government may,

by notification from time to time specify in this behalf.

4. In terms of Section 3(2) of the said Act, the Government can

also, in the interest of better administration and development of the

areas form a new district, revenue division or Mandal by separation

of area from any district, revenue division, or mandal or by uniting

two or more districts, revenue divisions, or mandals or parts

thereof or by uniting any area to a district, revenue division,

mandal or part thereof. It can also by issuance of a notification

under Section 3(2) of the Act, increase or diminish the area of any

district, revenue division or mandal or alter their boundaries or

names.

5. Section 3(5) of the Act envisages as under:

“(5) Before issuing any notification under this

section, the Government or the [Commissioner of Land

Revenue], as the case may be, shall publish in such manner

as may be prescribed, the proposals inviting objections or

suggestions thereon from the persons residing within the

district, revenue division, [mandal] or village who are likely

to be affected thereby within such period as may be specified

therein, and shall take into consideration the objections or

suggestions, if any, received.”

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 7

6. Section 4 of the Act entitles the State Government to make

rules for carrying out all or any of the purposes of the Act. In

exercise of the power so conferred under Section 4(1), the rules

namely, the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Rules, 1984

(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), have been framed. Rule 3

and 4 of the Rules, being relevant to the present controversy, are

reproduced hereunder:

3. Matters of consideration in formation of districts etc.:— (1)

Where any action is proposed to be taken by the Government

under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act or

by the Commissioner of Land Revenue under sub-section (4) of

that Section, the Government or the Commissioner of Land

Revenue, as the case may be, shall take into consideration as far

as may be the following matters and the views of the Collectors of

the districts and of such other authorities as the Government

may consider necessary:—

(i) Area, population, demand under the land revenue and other

revenues in respect of areas affected by the proposals:

(ii) Historical association, Geographical contiguity, Physical

features, common interests and problems, Cultural and

Educational requirements, Infrastructural facilities and economic

progress of the areas.

(iii) Development of the area concerned, having regard to the

various developments and welf are schemes undertaken or

contemplated by the Government in relation to those areas;

(iv) Administrative convenience and better administration; and

(v) interest of economy.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 8

(2) With regard to any proposals for alteration of the name of

the district revenue division, mandal or a village regard shall be

had among other matters, to the following namely:— (i) Historical

association, if any, of the existing name, with the proposed

change; and (ii) the need for change of name if any proposed.

(3) In matters concerning sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of

Section 3 of the Acts the Collector concerned shall forward to the

Government his report with his views together with the record of

enquiry if any for the consideration of the Government. If after

such consideration the Government so decides, a preliminary

notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act inviting

objections or suggestions to the proposals from the persons

residing in the area/areas which are likely to be affected thereby,

shall be issued.

(4) In matters concerning sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the

Act, the Collector concerned shall forward to the Commissioner of

Land Revenue his report together with the record of inquiry if

any with his views for the consideration of the Commissioner. If

after such consideration the Commissioner of Land Revenue so

decides, a preliminary notification under sub-section (4) of

Section 3 of the Act inviting objections or suggestions to the

proposals from the persons residing in the area/areas which are

likely to be affected thereby shall be issued.

4. Publication of preliminary notification:— (1) The preliminary

notification referred to in sub-rule (3) or (4) of Rule 3 inviting

objections or suggestions thereon shall be in Form I and shall be

published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and the District

Gazettes of the district/or districts affected by the proposal and

shall also be displayed at the village chavidi, offices of Gram

Panchayat, Panchayat Samithi and on the notice boards of the

Offices of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector/Assistant

Collector/Collectorate and Zilla Parishad.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 9

(2) Any person affected by the proposal may within [30 day's]

from the date of publication of the notification referred to in sub-

rule (1) above communicate his objections or suggestions thereto

to the Secretary to the Government in the Revenue Department

or to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as the case may be,

through the Collector of the district concerned, who shall forward

the same with his remarks to the Gove rnment or the

Commissioner of Land Revenue as the case may be.

In the light of the aforementioned provisions of the Act and the

Rules, it appears that the Government constituted State Level

Committee (SLC) namely the ‘Committee to study the restructuring

of Districts in Andhra Pradesh’ under the chairmanship of the Chief

Secretary to Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.2098, dated 07.08.2020.

Subsequently, the Governmen t issued another G.O. bearing

G.O.Rt.No.2207, dated 22.08.2020, constituting sub-committees

and District Level Committees to assist the State Level Committee

and for providing inputs to the said Committee.

7. It is not denied that objections were filed to the draft

notifications issued in terms of Section 3(5) of the Act in regard to

creation of Sri Satya Sai District with proposed Headquarters at

Puttaparthy in W.P.(PIL) No.53 of 2022 ; and creation of

Annamayya District with Rayachoti as Headquarters by the

petitioners in W.P.(PIL) Nos.59, 77 and 78 of 2022 ; as also

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 10

inclusion of Ramachandrapuram Assem bly Constituency in the

Konaseema District in W.P. (PIL) No.71 of 2022.

8. According to the petitioners, objections filed to the draft

notifications were not considered in the correct perspective

inasmuch as they had not followed the criteria prescribed under the

Act of 1974 and the Rules framed thereunder.

9. The stand of the official respondents, on the other hand, is

that all the objections received in regard to the above were

considered in the correct perspective in accordance with the

provisions of the Act of 1974 and the Rules of 1984 and the official

notifications, dated 02.04.2022, were issued.

For purposes of reference, as can be seen from the counter-

affidavit filed by the Government:

In the case of W.P.(PIL) No.53 of 2022:

In response to the objections/suggestions, the remarks of the

Collector were as under:

“546 Applications have been received. The Request made to

consider Hindupur as District Head Quarter is not considered as

Puttaparthy has all infrastructural facilities. Hence the request

may be rejected.”

Remarks of the Government were as under:

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 11

“Hindupur is not centrally located to the newly proposed Sri

Satya Sai District. Hindupur is having an inter-state border with

Karnataka State.

The availability of infrastructural facilities has been the most

important criterion for the setting up of new district head

quarters. Puttaparthy has better infrastructure facilities and is

having good transportation facilities from all corners of the State

and Country. There is a Super Specialty Hospital runned by Sri

Satya Sai Central Trust and is providing free services to the poor

people. Sri Satya Sai Airport is conveniently located Six (6) Kms

from Puttaparthy town and it is the only privately owned airport

in India. It can be used by the Government for Transportation.

Hence the same is selected as district head Quarters of Sri Satya

Sai District. The Collector has also recommended the same. Hence

the request may be rejected and accordingly, the Preliminary

Notification may be confirmed.”

In the cases of W.P.(PIL) Nos. 59, 77 and 78 of 2022:

In response to the objections/suggestions filed by the

petitioners and similarly situate others, wherein request was made

to declare Rajampet as District Headquarters of the newly proposed

Annamayya District, the Collector submitted his remarks as under:

“The notification No. 119 dated 26.01.2022 of the Andhra

Pradesh was issued by the Government of AP for restructuring of

the district taking into consideration of proximity to the proposed

new Head Quarters to the three Assembly Constituencies in YSR

District and Chittoor District within Rajampet Parliamentary

Constituency. The distance of proposed new district Head Quarter

from other Constituencies is as detailed below:-

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 12

The distance from Rajampet to Madanapalli, Piler, Tamballapalli

& Rly. Kodur is 127 KMs, 92 KMs, 120 KMs & 56 KMs

respectively whereas from Rayachoti to Madanapalli, Piler,

Tamballapalli & Rly. Kodur is 71 KMs, 56 KMs, 64 KMs & 92

KMs respectively. Further, in respect of infrastructure, it is also

available at Rayachoti. Hence, the request of the petitioner could

not be considered due to geographical distances.

Remarks of the Government were as under:

“Rule 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh district (formation) rules,

1984 lists various factors that need to be taken into consideration

by the Government, in addition to the views of the collectors, on

representations received after preliminary notifications under

Rule 3(3).

The distance from Rajampet to Madanapalli, Piler, Tamballapalli

& Rly. Kodur is 127 KMs, 92 KMs, 120 KMs & 56 KMs

respectively whereas from Rayachoti to Madanapalli, Piler,

Tamballapalli & Rly. Kodur is 71 KMs, 56 KMs, 64 KMs & 92

KMs respectively. Further, in respect of infrastructure, the same

is also readily available at Rayachoti.

Keeping in view of the distances from Rajampeta and Rayachoti

to other Mandals and due to this proximity, it is historically

associated with geographical areas of Rayachoti. Under the

circumstances, the request to declare Rajampet as District Head

Quarters of newly proposed Annamayya District appears to be

not justified.

Hence, the request may not be accepted to incorporate in the

final Notification.”

In the case of W.P.(PIL) No.71 of 2022:

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 13

As per the counter-affidavit filed, it appears that the

objections to the notification, dated 25.01.2022, were filed which

were considered by the Government in the light of the following

remarks:

“Ramachandrapuram Revenue Division with the headquarters

Ramachandrapuram is presently situated in Amalapuram

Parliamentary constituency. Now, it is being proposed for

inclusion in proposed Konaseema District with the headquarters

at Amalapuram. The distance between Ramachandrapuram

revenue division headquarters at Ramachandrapuram to

proposed headquarters at Amalapuram is about 55 kms whereas

from Kakinada, it is about 31 kms. The objections are not

considered since there is not much difference in respect of

distance factor from Ramachandrapuram revenue division to the

proposed headquarters of Kakinada and Amalapuram.

Ramachandrapuram Revenue division is falling under

Amalapuram Parliamentary constituency and the objective of the

Government is to reorganise the districts more (or) less basing on

the existing Parliamentary constituency as a criteria.”

After considering the objections so filed, the Government

issued a final notification for formation of Konaseema District, vide

G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 02.04.2022, following the procedure under

the A.P. District (Formation) Act, 1974 and A.P. District

(Formation) Rules, 1984. It is not out of place to mention that as

per the counter-affidavit filed by the Government, the Government

has changed the name of Konaseema District as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Konaseema District, vide G.O.Rt.No.361, dated 18.05.2022.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 14

10. From the above, it is thus clear that the objections were not

only invited in terms of the Act of 1974 and the Rules framed

thereunder, they were also considered by the Government pursuant

to which the final notifications were issued on 03.04.2022. It would

be apt for us to place reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment in

the case of J.R. Raghupathy & Others v. State of A.P. & Others

1 in

which the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court

wherein it had interfered with the location of the Mandal

Headquarters and had quashed the impugned notification on the

ground that the Government had acted in breach of the guidelines

and proceeded to decide that place A was more centrally located

than place B for the location of such Mandal headquarters. The

Apex Court, in those circumstances, held:

“31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the

High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the

location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned

notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach

of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally

located or that location at the other place would promote general

public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a

particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it.

The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of

the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act

was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the

proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned an d the

1

(1988) 4 SCC 364

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 15

objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like

the gram panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that

the Government while accepting the recommendations of the

Cabinet Sub Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters

should be at place 'X' rather than place 'Y' as recommended by the

Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not

have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the

guidelines which were nothing more than administrative

instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give

rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners.”

11. It is settled law that this Court, in exercise of powers under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not test the decision

but the decision making process. Reference in this regard can be

made to the judgments rendered in the cases of Vivek Narayan

Sharma v. Union of India

2 and State of U.P. vs. Maharaja

Dharmander Prasad Singh

3.

12. In the present cases, the decision of the Government does not

suffer from any perversity nor can it be said to be in violation of the

Act of 1974 or the Rules of 1984. We find no merit in these

petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR , CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO , J

AKN

2

(2023) 3 SCC 1

3

(1989) 2 SCC 505

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 & 78 of 2022 16

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

W.P.(PIL) Nos.53,59, 71, 77, 78 of 2022

DATE : 04.04.2024

AKN