A division bench of the Hyderabad High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar on Thursday declared that the review petitions on bifurcation of the Hyderabad High Court and forming a separate High Court for AP should be heard by a larger bench as issues of ‘great public importance’ were to be adjudicated. The bench was dealing with the cases arising out of PIL filed by Dhanpal Rao on formation of a separate high court for AP. It may be recalled that the judgment in this PIL was delivered by a division bench headed by the then Chief Justice in May 2015. The bench had then declared that the High Court for AP should be situated within the geographical boundaries of AP state only. The contention that it could be located in Hyderabad for some time at least was rejected. Telangana state and several interveners from Telangana filed petitions seeking review of the judgment.
Pronouncing the judgment, the bench said that after hearing review petitions two important questions were framed. First one was whether the earlier judgment of May 2015 had put any fetters upon the powers of the President in notifying the place where the principal seat of AP High Court was to be situated.
The second question was what the true purport of the word’ Principal Seat’ in section 31(2) of the AP reorganization Act was. Section 31(2) of the Act reads as follows “The Principal seat of the High Court of AP shall be at such place as the President appoint”. The bench said that this should be interpreted with provisions of the Act passed in 1956. In 1956, the AP High Court was formed by merging the then Hyderabad High Court and the Andhra High Court which was carved out of the then Madras High Court. The bench said that the provisions of the Constitution and present situation should be read together and correctly interpreted. The bench said that a larger bench would hear the matter and answer the two questions framed.
