This is the Andhra Pradesh Decentralization and Inclusive Development of All Regions Bill, 2020 that got passed in Legislative Assembly of A.P. but fortunately got stalled in the Legislative Council (Upper House of AP Legislature).
The twin for the above Bill is here.
Interesting case… A muslim man alleges indecent behavior by members of Tablighi Jamaat and as a consequence, he himself got booked by Police. In the following Order, he got Anticipatory bail from Bombay High Court.
Citations:
Other Source links:
Finally, a separate High Court was formed for the State of Andhra Pradesh by the following gazette notification by the President of India. This started functioning from 01 January 2019 at Nelapadu, Amaravati, the capital city of Sunrise State, Andhra Pradesh
All High Courts here.
Here is a small time line on the events
On 13-Sep-2019
An expert committee was constituted (through G.O.Rt. No. 585 dated September 13, 2019) for reviewing the development strategy for Capital city (Amaravati).
Here is the GO constituting the GN Rao Expert Committee
Here are the terms and conditions for the Expert Committee
Appointment of Brig. Dr. P Raj Kumar as consultant to the Expert Committee
On 14-Nov-2019
The High Court on Thursday admitted and posted to November 28 a writ petition filed by a couple of farmers belonging to Borupalem village in Thullur mandal of Guntur district with the plea to declare the constitution of an expert committee (through G.O.Rt. No. 585 dated September 13, 2019) for reviewing the development strategy for Capital city (Amaravati) as arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Act, 2014 and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The government abruptly stopped the construction activity in the entire Capital city area, including the construction of the High Court building, the roads and other infrastructure works without giving or assigning any reason, they mentioned in their petition.
News source here.
On 09-Dec-2019
Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi files a PIL WP(PIL) 179/2019 which challenges G O Rt No 585 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 13-09-2019.
The drama unfolded on 17-Dec-2019 (On record, Officially; Preparations started way before that date)
*Andhra Pradesh Have Three Capitals, CM Jagan Announced In Assembly*
https://english.sakshi.com/andhrapradesh/2019/12/17/ap-may-have-3-capitals-to-ensure-decentralisation-cm
https://epaper.sakshi.com/2468958/Andhra-Pradesh/18-12-2019#page/1/1
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/andhra-pradesh-ys-jagan-mohan-reddy-three-capitals-amaravati-ysrcp-1629174-2019-12-17
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/-decentralised-administration-andhra-may-have-three-capitals-says-cm-jagan-11576603472552.html
On 03-01-2020,
Boston Consulting Group submits it’s report on the concept of decentralized development for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
On 11-01-2020 and 12-01-2020,
Farmer and villagers around Amaravati region started peaceful agitation. Police (under the Order of yours truly) assaulted them violently.
News source here.
On 13-01-2020,
AP High Court took Suo moto cognizance of this events and initiated a WP(PIL) 3/2020, the prayer of which is as follows:
In the light of the news items published in Eenadu Telugu daily news papers dated 12 01 2020 and 13 01 2020 that the general public and the ryots in the State of Andhra Pradesh and particularly in and around Vijayawada Mandadam Tullur Vijayawada of Krishna and Guntur districts are agitating peacefully by way of dharna rasta roko and public meetings in protest against the proposal of the Government of Andhra Pradesh to shift the State capital from Amavaravati to a different place that the ryots and women have also been participating in large number and that in order to control and curb such agitations the Police are allegedly resorting to coming down heavily upon the agitators and that the Police particularly men police have resorted to take the agitators into custody and further that the Police particularly men police have also handled misbehaved and touched the women agitators indecently and also even preventing them to go the temples thereby violating human rights fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and atrocities particularly against women citizens and therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may issue a writ in the nature of mandamus calling for the records and remarks from the Respondents herein in this regard and to take appropriate action against the Respondents for the indecent behaviour of the Police on the agitators particularly the women agitators and to issue further orders / directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.
Current Status: Next date not given; PENDING.
News source here.
MORE PILs
WP(PIL) 4/2020
WP(PIL) 5/2020
WP(PIL) 7/2020
WP(PIL) 8/2020
WP(PIL) 9/2020
WP(PIL) 15/2020
WP(PIL) 22/2020
WP(PIL) 70/2020
WP(PIL) 72/2020:
WP(PIL) 73/2020:
WP(PIL) 73/2020:
On 17-01-2020,
High Power Committee submitted it’s report on 17-01-2020 supporting 3-Capital proposal.
On 20-01-2020,
The following Bills were introduced by Government Ministers in Assembly and were passed late in the night, on the strength of 151 MLAs
The following GO is issued
On 21-01-2020,
On 22-01-2020,
The ‘Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Bill, 2020’ was stalled in the Upper House/Legislative Council and passed a resolution to refer the bills for the select committee.
News source here.
Planning department – Hiring of services of Sri Mukul Rohatgi, Senior legal Counsel and former Attorney General of India to defend the case filed in the High Court relating to the Capital issue against the Government – Sanction of Rs.1.00 crore as an advance – Accorded – Orders – Issued
Funds released
Related PIL: WP(PIL) 23/2020
On 31-01-2020,
From Para 76,
76) In view of our foregoing discussion, the act of the Executive Authority of the State in issuing G.O.Ms.No.13 General Administration (SC.F) Department dated 31.01.2020 proposing to shift the office of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and also offices of the Member(s) Commissioner of Inquiries from Interim Government Complex, Velagapudi to Kurnool is not only prima facie mala fide, unreasonable and irrational, but also contrary to Section 39 of the CRDA Act. Hence, we find prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, balance of convenience is also tilting in their favour, hence it is a fit case to suspend G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 as the said order came to be issued contrary to the Statute and is tainted by mala fides. Accordingly, the question as posed is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
On 10-03-2020,
WP(PIL) 64/2020 was filed and on 23-03-2020, Order was passed staying the GO.Ms. No 72 of 2020 dated 25.01.2020 here.
On 23-03-2020,
WP(PIL) 24/2020: Lot of things challenged here. AP High Court passed a common Order here.
On 14-04-2020,
WP(PIL) 92/2020 was filed and AP High Court extended the time for hearing objections until 30 May 2020 and directed the State government that, Regulations Shall not be finalized without considering the objections. Last Order is here.
After passing the AP Panchayat Raj Rules 2020 here, the following steps were taken by incumbent AP Govt.
GO for Cessation of Tenure due to Promulgation of Ordinance No. 5 of 2020
Corresponding Gazette
GO for Sri Justice V.Kanagaraj, Retired High Court Judge, appointed as SEC of A.P State Election Commission
Corresponding Gazette
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
After getting the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 5 of 2020 Promulgated here, on 10 April 2020 by AP Governor Shri. Biswabhusan Harichandan, the following Rules were framed via GO and Gazette (G.O. Ms. 617).
GO
Corresponding Gazette
Once these Rules 2020 were framed, the next steps taken are here.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
After the nonsensical and futile legal squirmish with AP SEC here, incumbent AP Govt took the following legal step. The Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 5 of 2020 Promulgated on 10 April 2020 was first marked as confidential soon after its approval, but placed it in the public domain later in the evening as reported here.
Government Order: Announcing the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat-Raj (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2020
Even though, I could not find the gazette version of Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 5 of 2020, promulgated on 10 April 2020, the following are the various Government Orders (GOs) and the Gazatte notifications of the said GOs.
As a consequence to this GO (Gazette still not found), the following three legislative steps were taken.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
Even though Supreme Court upheld High Court decision in holding the Police officer who executed the cancelled Non-bailable warrant against the practicing advocate, it held that Police officer was sufficiently reprimanded. High Court had also granted a compensation of Rs.2000/- from the personal account of Police officer to the Advocate!!!
Citations: [2012 SCC 9 791], [2011 AIOL 663], [2012 AIR BOMR 1 197], [2011 AIR SC 3393], [2011 AIR SC 5347], [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 65], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 1 260], [2011 JT 10 253], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 212], [2011 SCALE 10 233], [2011 SLT 7 1], [2012 SCC CRI 4 679]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934058/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd363607dba63d7e6e2d9
(1) The Court issuing a proclamation under section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable, or both, belonging to the proclaimed person:
Provided that where at the time of the issue of the proclamation the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued,—
(a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or
(b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court, it may order the attachment simultaneously with the issue of the proclamation.
(2) Such order shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person within the district in which it is made; and it shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person without such district when endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose district such property is situate.
(3) If the property ordered to be attached is a debt or other movable property, the attachment under this section shall be made—
(a) by seizure; or
(b) by the appointment of a receiver; or
(c) by an order in writing prohibiting the delivery of such property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf; or
(d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit.
(4) If the property ordered to be attached is immovable, the attachment under this section shall, in the case of land paying revenue to the State Government, be made through the Collector of the district in which the land is situate, and in all other cases—
(a) by taking possession; or
(b) by the appointment of a receiver; or
(c) by an order in writing prohibiting the payment of rent on delivery of property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf; or
(d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit.
(5) If the property ordered to be attached consists of live-stock or is of a perishable nature, the Court may, if it thinks it expedient, order immediate sale thereof, and in such case the proceeds of the sale shall abide the order of the Court.
(6) The powers, duties and liabilities of a receiver appointed under this section shall be the same as those of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:—
(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house;
(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.
(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).
Bad Behavior has blocked 818 access attempts in the last 7 days.
