ORDER
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J
1. The Bar Association, Razole, East Godavari District has filed this writ petition questioning the G.O.Ms.No.127, Law Courts-C Department, dated 9-7-1999 sanctioning the establishment of Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Kothapeta as arbitrary and vitiated by legal mala fides.
2. At present, there is a Junior Civil Judge-cum-First Class Magistrate’s Court covering the Revenue Mandals of Kothapeta, Ravulapaiem, P. Gannavaram and Athrayapuram. The Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Razole has been functioning at Razole since the year 1974 or so. It covers the areas within the territorial jurisdiction of Junior Civil Judge’s Courts at Kothapeta and Razole. In February, 1992, the High Court recommended to the Government for establishing 72 new Courts of various categories. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kothapeta was one amongst the new Courts recommended by the High Court. Out of these 72, in 1995, the Government issued orders sanctioning the establishment of 26 new Courts which figure in the list recommended by the High Court. Again on 9-7-1999 the Government issued orders sanctioning eight Sr. Civil Judges’ Courts and one Junior Civil Judge’s Court. The Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Kothapeta is one amongst the said Courts sanctioned by the Government. It may be stated that during the intervening period between 1992-1999, fresh proposals were being sent by the High Court from time to time for establishing new Courts including the Sub-Courts (now known as Senior Civil Judge’s Courts.).
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the establishment of new Court at Kothapeta by bifurcating/splitting up the jurisdiction of the existing Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Razole is wholly unwarranted and the existing pendency at Razole Court and the projected pendency in the new Court to be set up at Kothapeta does not justify the creation of a Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Kothapeta. It issubmitted that the work in Razole Court will be considerably reduced on account of creation of new Court at Kothapeta carved out of the existing Sub-Court at Razole. It is also contended that the Government reached the decision arbitrarily which is evident from the fact that quite a number of Courts with heavy pendency remain as they are.
4. The Registrar-General of the High Court filed counter stating that the Sub-Court, Kothapeta is one amongst the new Courts recommended by the High Court in 1992. On the basis of the report of the Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.77, Home, Courts-A, dated 31-1-1991 and according to the quantitative norms laid down by the Committee, a Sub-Court with 300 main cases suits, sessions cases etc., should be treated as viable. According to the statistics given in the counter, the cases on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Razole including the cases arising from Kothapeta and other mandals (sought to be brought within the jurisdiction of (he new Court) are 749 main cases as on 1-7-1999 and out of them, the pendency of main cases arising from the territorial jurisdiction of Kothapeta Junior Civil Judge’s Court are 247. It is then stated in the counter: “After the establishment of the Sub-Court at Kothapeta, there is every likelihood of increase in the institutions in that Court in view of the fact that the pendency of cases on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta as on 1-7-1999 is 2550 cases”. It is on this basis, the creation of Court at Kothapeta is sought to be justified by the High Court. The State Government has not filed any counter.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the imp leaded respondent viz., Bar Association, Kothapeta submits that the Court having been set up on the recommendations of the High Court, the decision taken by the Government cannot be said to be arbitrary. It is pointed out thateven in the year 1984, the then District Judge recommended the establishment of Sub-Court at Kothapeta. He then submits that Athreyapuram Mandal which is included within the jurisdiction of the proposed new Court at Kothapeta is about 80 KMs., away from Razole and there is no direct bus available between the two stations. Thus, the new Court at Kothapeta will be within the easy reach of the people of many areas especially for the people of Athreyapuram. As regards the pendency position, the learned Counsel relies on the statement in the counter filed by the High Court and submits that in due course, the number of institutions at Kothapeta Court will go up. The learned Counsel also questions the locus standi of the petitioner to file this writ petition.
6. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that we are entering into the merits of the writ petition not for the reason that we are convinced of the locus standi of the petitioner or that a Bar Association can make out a legitimate grievance on account of the likely impact on the professional prospects by reason of the territorial readjustments of Courts. We doubt very much whether the members of the Bar of a particular area should be heard to complain against setting up a new Court in a contiguous area. However, on the basis of the facts brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner-Association, we are inclined to treat it as a public interest litigation, as it raises larger questions with regard to the propriety and reasonableness in the decision-making process by the executive in a matter touching judiciary. It is from this angle, we proceed to adjudicate the writ petition.
7. On the surface and at first blush, it appears that the decision of the Government is beyond criticism. Though the Government has not filed the counter, it can very welltake shelter under the recommendation of the High Court. It can very well be said that some of the Courts borne in the list of 72 Courts are being set up because of financial stringency, they have to necessarily identify some Courts and leave out others. But, the superficial legality and objectivity in identifying the Courts to be immediately set up breaks down when we take stock of the facts and figures. The factual position becomes too obvious when we look into the statistics of the cases pending in some of the Senior Civil Judge’s Courts out of which new Courts are proposed to be carved out which figure in the list of 72 Courts. From out of the said list, the Senior Civil Judge’s Courts (Sub-Courts) which are left out are the following:
Senior Civil Judge’s, Courts;
(1) Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Palakol, West Godavari District
(2) Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Repalle, Guntur District.
(3) Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. Additional Senior Civil Judge's Courts: (1) Bobbili (2) Vizianagaram (3) Kovvur (4) Tanuku (5) Guntur (6) Khammam (7) Secunderabad. The pendency in the existing Court (at Razole) out of which the new Court is proposed to be carved out and the projected pendency in that new Court as ascertained from the Registry are as follows: Civil and Criminal Cases pending in Razole Sub-Court 710 + 30 = 749 Projected pendency in the new Court at Kothapeta 247 Apart from that, in the intervening period, a number of Sub-Courts Sr. Civil Judge's Courts) both new and additional have been recommended by the High Court. In many such Courts and also in some of the remaining Courts included in the list of 72, the estimated pendency would be between 1000 and 1500.
8. When such being the pendency position in the left-out Courts, what is the justification for setting up a new Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Kothapeta which is expected to have about 250 main cases on its file? The figure of 250 does not even satisfy the norm of 300 which was thought of by the Committee before formulating the recommendations in 1991-1992. The District Judge’s recommendation of 1984 cannot be the proper guide while considering the position in 1999, that too on comparative basis.
9. The next question is whether there are any special circumstances warranting the establishment of Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Kothapeta. None are discernible from the pleadings or the G.O. The fact that Athreyapuram is quite far off to Razole is too remote a factor to call for creation of new Court at Kothapeta. From Athreyapuram area, the cases pending in Sub-Court, Razole are only 33 as on 1-7-1999. The inconvenience of litigant public of a segment of the area from where the institution and pendency is at minimal level cannot by itself be an overriding consideration that could possibly weigh with the Government. Coming to the next contention that having regard to the pendency of more than 2500 cases on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, the institution of cases in the proposed new Court could be considerable, cannot be given any weight for the reason that if we go by the past experience, the pendency has been there more or less at the same level right from 1996. Yet, the institutions from the areas proposed to be tagged on to the proposed Sub-Court have remained at a minimal level, as seen from the statistics from 1996 to 1998. In fact, the pendency of civil cases in Kothapeta Junior Civil Judge’s Court are 1838 out of 2,500 cases. Out of them, the pendency from Kothapeta and three other mandals which come within the jurisdiction of proposed Sub-Court are only 247. The criminal cases pending are not really material as they do not go to the Sub-Court except a few PRCs.
10. The emerging picture is thus far different from what it appears on the surface. The Government swears by the recommendations of the High Court seven years after the proposal has been sent up without taking stock of the latest position. The Government leaves out the Courts which by any objective standards are badly in need of new or additional Courts and sets up certain Courts in which the level of institutions and pendency would be far below the standards of viability and work-load. In a situation where the Government is not in a position to sanction all the new Courts recommended by the High Court and decides to sanction some of them, naturally, the question of priorities docs arise. The Courts to be established cannot be picked up from a hat without rule or rhyme. There must be prima facie justification for choosing some Courts to the exclusion of others. Such justification should of course be traceable to relevant grounds having nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The exercise of power cannot be arbitrary or capricious. There must be demonstrable reasons for preferring some out of the list recommended by the High Court to satisfy the test of reasonableness and bona fides. The choice should rest on considerations of publicinterest conditioned by pressing needs of the local area coupled with exigencies of judicial work. We shall not be however understood to mean that such selection should solely depend on the comparative assessment of volume of work. But, there may be other compelling reasons which may outweigh the said consideration. Even in regard to the institution and pendency position, we do not intend to lay down that there should be arithmetical accuracy for the purpose of giving weightage for setting up a Court. But, speaking on a comparative basis, if the number of cases likely to be transferred to the proposed new Court are far less than what it would be if a new Court in some other area is set up, strong and substantial reasons should be forthcoming for such preference. We would also like to stress that the consultation with the High Court in regard to establishment of new Courts must be meaningful and effective. Consultation in the year 1991 based on the then existing factual position and without regard to the subsequent march of events and without ascertaining latest views of the High Court can hardly be said to be ‘consultation’ which is implicit in the process of setting up and locating the Courts. In all fairness, the Government before going ahead with the process of selection of new Courts to be set up should have sought the views of High Court instead of finalising the proposal that emanated eight years back without regard to the ground realities and the pressing needs. By choosing to give priority to Sr. Civil Judge’s Court at Kothapeta, the Government has eschewed relevant factors pointed out above and arrived at a decision which ought to be characterised as arbitrary. Such decision is also contrary to the spirit of consultation underlying Section 12 of the A.P. Civil Courts Act. Such an exercise of power cannot therefore be legally upheld.
11. We therefore quash the impugned G.O. insofar as it relates to setting up of a new Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Kothapeta,East Godavari District and instead we direct the Government to take a fresh decision in consultation with the High Court to set up a new Senior Civil Judge’s Court at another place according to the needs and priorities in the light of the observations made above. We also direct that in future, the Government should not take a decision in isolation on the basis ofthe recommendations of 1991 without regard to further recommendations made by the High Court and without ascertaining the latest views of the High Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without costs.
12. Before closing the judgment, we would like to clarify that although the decision to set up some other Courts can be said to be vitiated by the same logic and reasoning as in the instant case, we are not however inclined to nullify the G.O. in regard to the Courts which have already started functioning. In other words, we do not want to unsettle the settled events at this stage. As regards the propriety of setting up the Courts which have not started functioning, in respect of which there is challenge in some other writ petitions, we refrain from expressing any view.