The High Court objected to the Ministers and MLAs holding round table meetings in favor of the three capitals after they had given a clear verdict that Amaravate is the capital of AP.
, ‘Supreme’ should wait for decision
Objection to third party appeal against single judge order
Today, Amaravati: The High Court objected to the Ministers and MLAs holding round table meetings in favor of the three capitals after giving a clear verdict that Amaravati is the capital of AP. Such actions are not commendable. After the court ruled that the government does not have the authority to set up a high court…it is not appropriate to hold protests for the high court in Kurnool. She questioned why the government is allowing such programs. After the three-judge bench ruled that Amaravati should be the capital, it asked why the farmers should make a mahapadayatra from Amaravati to Arasavalli. She commented that all these are political marches organized with farmers in front. It reminded that SLPs were filed in the Supreme Court against the High Court verdict. We have to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court. Many feel that the High Court is busy with lawsuits filed by farmers and such actions are meant to put pressure on the court. Dhanekula Rama Rao, secretary of ‘Amaravati Rajdhani Samiyakar Rythu Samakhya’ and ‘Rajdhani Rythu Parirakshan Samithi’, filed appeals on October 27, stating that the conditions imposed by the High Court single judge in the case filed by ‘Amaravati Parirakshan Samithi’ in the case of Padayatra are depriving them of their right to express solidarity. The bench made comments to this effect during the hearing held on Wednesday. How can you, the third party, appeal against the order given by the court in the case filed by the Amaravati Conservation Society? That is the basic objection raised. As the counter filed by the government was not included in the court file, the trial was adjourned to 7th of this month. The registry was directed to include the counter file in the records.
How will the High Court decide to do the Yatra with only 600 people?
Senior Advocate Adinarayana Rao
‘The padayatra is being held to explain to the people the problems faced by the farmers who were given land to the capital by the decision of the government. A single judge of the High Court ordered that the yatra should be conducted with only 600 people and stand on the side of the roads to show solidarity. Those orders became disruptive to the existing members of the society who filed the appeal. Depriving their rights. How can the court decide that the padayatra will be organized with only 600 people? We want to give permission to the members of the petitioners’ community to walk together in the padayatra…’ argued senior advocate Adinarayana Rao on behalf of the farmers. The bench responded to this.. After the three-judge bench of the High Court ruled that Amaravate is the capital, it questioned the reason for the padayatra. Senior lawyer Adinarayana Rao responded.. ‘Since the establishment of the High Court in Kurnool is a government policy… it is encouraging protest programs there. Ministers are holding round table meetings in favor of the three capitals despite the High Court verdict…’ he said. The bench observed that such actions are not commendable. Senior lawyer Adinarayana Rao continued his arguments.. ‘Citizens have the right to protest that the government’s decision is wrong. If someone is protesting, it is a constitutional right to show solidarity with them and protest. It cannot be denied. Solidarity can be expressed in various forms. It is not right for the court to order only 600 people to participate in the yatra. The police are stopping those who are going on a padayatra citing the single judge’s order as a pretext. What is the justification for giving permission only to those who have identity cards? The police consider those who show solidarity as anti-social forces. The responsibility of the police is to ensure that the yatra is peaceful. There are no conditions for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s political trip in the name of Bharat Jodo Yatra. Explaining to the people the loss caused to them by the government’s decision, why the obstacles…’ he said. In response to this, the bench suggested that a lawsuit should be filed before a single judge in the Padayatra case. In the case filed by the Amaravati Conservation Society, how will you appeal against the order given by the single judge and what will be the eligibility of the trial? Speaking on behalf of the state government, AG S.Sreeram said, ‘It is not a fundamental right to speak as you like in the name of expressing solidarity. The members of Amaravati Pariraksan Samithi, who were conducting the padayatra, violated the orders given by the court. In the supplementary petition filed by the petitioners seeking leave to file an appeal, we countered..
