VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday asked the Accountant General to place before it the details regarding the amount spent on the construction of Amaravati and the extent of works completed till now and the loss to be incurred if the construction is stopped.
The High Court also said that if the Accountant General fails to provide the details sought, it would get the details from the Income Tax and Vigilance departments.
The Bench of Chief Justice J K Maheswari and Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy and Justice Jayasurya was hearing the PILs filed by farmers from Amaravati challenging the CRDA Repeal Act and the report given by the GN Rao Committee. With the counsel of the petitioners not making their arguments, the Bench expressed its disappointment and said it would hear the arguments of the State government, if the counsels on behalf of the petitioners did not continue their arguments. The counsels of the petitioners informed the Bench that they were waiting for the Supreme Court advocates to present their hearings.
Later, counsel of the petitioners U Muralidhar Rao said the GN Rao Committee gave its report favouring the State government’s stand on decentralisation of administration. He further informed the court that the Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy made an announcement on decentralised administration even before the committee submitted its report.
He further said that the government did not conduct any grama sabhas in the capital villages before taking a decision on shifting capital “unilaterally”.The Bench said it will hear the government arguments over the points raised by the petitioners and posted the matter for hearing to Tuesday.
In-person hearing for case on FB posts against judges
The AP High Court on Monday said it would hear in person the case related to the writ petitions filed against the derogatory social media posts against some of the Andhra Pradesh High Court judges and the judiciary.
The bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar and Justice B Krishna Mohan, which heard the matter on Monday, felt that it would be difficult to hear the matter in virtual mode as the respondents are more in number. The Bench asked the Registry to list the matter for further hearing once the High Court starts hearing the cases in person.