AP capital\'s location state’s prerogative not of judiciary: Special counsel

VIJAYAWADA: Special counsel representing the police, S.S Prasad, informed the division bench of AP High Court that it was the prerogative of the state government to decide the location for setting up its capital city on administrative grounds and ruled out any role for the judiciary to intervene.

Arguing before the division bench, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar and Justice J. Uma Devi, the special counsel asserted that it was the responsibility of the state government to decide which was good and bad keeping in mind the interests of the people and made it clear that there was no role for the judiciary in such issues. He also said that such decisions were not even in the domain of the judiciary.

Moreover, he said, as the issue of setting up three capitals was before the three-member division bench, it was inappropriate to argue on the issue in the court.  He also suggested to the court not to make any statements on the capitals issue.

Referring to Justice Rakesh Kumar, the special counsel said that as the judge came here from other state, he might not be knowing the problems pertaining to the location of the High Court and pointed out they were facing a series of problems like lack of water, less availability of tea or food as the court was located in a far-off place. He asked about the need for setting up the court in such a location with no proper amenities.

Referring to the PILs filed in the HC, he opined that they were not having any public interest except to serve political motives.

Prasad slammed former chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu for his capricious attitude towards the police by seeking their help when he wanted and finding fault with them when he was in no need of their help. He said that as Naidu arrived in Visakhapatnam to play politics, the police asked him to go back wondering why his party leaders were making a hue and cry on the issue. He opined that Naidu should have filed the PIL if he was so concerned instead of allowing his party leaders to file. He said that the PIL lacked any sanctity for being heard in the court.

He also asked as to how far it could be justified to hold the Chief Minister and DGP responsible when a constable had committed a mistake.

As the petitioner’s counsel S. Pranathi sought time to file a reply to the counter-affidavit filed by the police, the court adjourned the hearing to Monday.