Convenience Of Litigants Weighs More Than Convenience Of Advocates: AP High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Shifting Of Sessions Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a Government Order that envisaged shifting of the Court of VI Additional District Sessions Court, Machilipatnam to Avanigadda.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, while noting the distance between Avanigadda and Machilipatnam being roughly 35 kms, held,

“Litigants from the Avanigadda area would be relieved from having to traverse that distance to file their cases on each and every date of hearing. The justice dispensation system exists for the benefit of litigants, whose convenience and concerns weigh with the higher judiciary in taking decisions, including the decision regarding the shifting of the Court. While it is true that advocates affiliated with the Bar Association in Machilipatnam would now have to travel to Avanigadda, when considering the balance of convenience, we believe the convenience of the litigants would weigh more than that of the advocates.”

The Court further observed:

“It is not out of place here to mention that the Advocates' profession has been considered to be a noble one, where personal financial interests and convenience are secondary to the main goal of rendering justice to those in need. In the present case, while the shifting of the Court to Avanigadda would lead to some inconvenience to the advocates at Machilipatnam, yet, in our opinion, the interest of the litigants would be subserved upon such a shifting. While we agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judge-to-population ratio is abysmally low in our country and needs to be increased by expanding the cadre strength of judges at various levels, yet until the desired results are achieved, one cannot ignore the short-term measures that are required, as have been taken in the instant case.”

Background

The observations were made in a case where the High Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Machilipatnam Bar Association challenging a Government Order (G.O. Rt. No.124), issued by the Law (L & LA) (Home- Courts.A) Department which ordered the shifting of the Court of VI Additional District Sessions Court from Machilipatnam to Avanigadda along with the cases arising out of the territorial jurisdiction of Avanigadda and the staff attached to the Court.

The petitioners argued that the Court in question was dealing with cases relating to senior citizens and, therefore, shifting the said Court to Avanigadda would heavily prejudice the interest of the senior citizens and subsequently inconvenience them in pursuing their cases at Avanigadda. Additionally, the petitioners contended that instead of shifting the said Court, steps should have been taken to establish a new Court at Avanigadda, while retaining the Court at Machilipatnam. It was also the case of the petitioners that Avanigadda, being a flood prone area during the rainy seasons, was not a suitable location as it may heavily inconvenience the litigants.

Observations of the High Court

The Division Bench noted that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had taken the decision to shift the said Court from Machilipatnam to Avanigadda after considering the convenience of the litigants who were filing cases at from Machilipatnam, but who otherwise belonged to the seven Mandals of Avanigadda, namely Nagayalanka, Koduru, Avanigadda, Mopidevi, Challapalli, Ghantasala, and Movva.

Additionally, the Court failed to find substance in the argument of the petitioners that the impugned shifting shall inconvenience the senior citizens as the cases would still be dealt with by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court, Machilipatnam. Against the argument of the petitioners that Avanigadda was a flood-prone area, the Court noted the statement of the respondent that the last major floods in the region had occurred nearly 45 years ago and the situation of the region had not been so bad since so as to render operation of the Court at Avanigadda impossible.

Thus, the Court did not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned GO and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 12440 of 2024

Case Name: Machilipatnam Bar Association and others Vs. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and others

Date: 21.03.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order