IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.29952 OF 2010 Date:18.04.2011 Between:- District Bar Association, District Court, Ongole. .. Petitioner. A N D The High Court of Andhra Pradesh and others. .. Respondents. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The District Bar Association, Ongole seeks a Mandamus to declare the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.03.2009 and 27.04.2010 according permission and approving the draft lease deed proposed by the 2nd respondent, granting lease of a part of the premises of the District Court, Ongole for construction and establishment of a branch by the 3rd respondent – State Bank of India on a 70 years lease basis, to be illegal. The 3rd respondent established an extension counter in the District Court complex, Ongole in 1992, wherefrom it caters to the needs of the Court, the litigants, ministerial employees and the public. In 2007 the extension counter was upgraded to a full-fledged branch to cope up with the increased demands of business. The 3rd respondent bank represented to the 2nd respondent on 27.11.2008 for allotment of a distinct place in the court complex for construction of a building for locating its branch, asserting that the existing premises allotted to it is inadequate. It sought a long duration lease. Another application was submitted on 11.12.2008. The 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 1st respondent on 29.12.2008 stating that the District Court’s central record room situate on the western side of the present District Court and facing the public road on the northern side was in a dilapidated condition, is now lying vacant and could be allotted to the 3rd respondent for constructing its branch. After correspondence with regard to details of the proposed site, the space required for establishing a branch and other incidental aspects, the 1st respondent in proceedings dated 19.03.2009 granted permission for allotment of a site in the court complex for construction of a building by the 3rd respondent with its own funds for establishing a branch on lease basis subject to certain conditions stipulated therein. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent on 18.03.2010 forwarded a draft lease deed for approval of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 27.04.2010 approved the draft lease deed subject to payment of rent at Rs.5,772/- per month payable by the 3rd respondent with a 5% increase thereon every five years, commencing from the date of taking possession of the site. Eventually, the 2nd respondent entered into a lease agreement with the 3rd respondent from 28.04.2010 whereunder an extent of 3,848 sq. feet was assigned on lease to the 3rd respondent for establishing its branch. This process of assignment of site for establishing a branch and entering into the lease deed with the 3rd respondent for the said purpose is assailed in this writ petition on several grounds, but principally on the grounds that there are advocates chambers in ‘A’ & ‘B’ blocks of the court premises; and that additional needs of the advocates for establishing lawyers chambers would be adversely impacted if the site is allotted to the 3rd respondent for establishing the branch. In this behalf, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 08.04.2010 and another representation dated 15.11.2010, to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court urging there was no necessity to allot a space to the 3rd respondent. In the representation dated 15.11.2010, the petitioner urged that establishment of a branch would cause hardship to the members of the bar and that the site proposed to be allotted to the 3rd respondent be allotted to the petitioner for expansion of advocates’ chambers. In the writ petition, it is additionally contended that the allotment of site to the 3rd respondent for establishing a branch without consulting the bar association or ascertaining their views is unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary. It is also contended that establishing the branch in the court premises would create a lot of noise and disturbance thereby eroding the “majesty and dignity” of courts. None of the contentions pleaded in the writ petition or urged in oral arguments for challenging the impugned action of the 2nd respondent in entering into the lease with the 3rd respondent nor the action of the 1st respondent in granting permission to the 2nd respondent for entering into the lease with the 3rd respondent for establishing a branch, commend acceptance of this Court. Whether space should be allotted in a court complex for establishing a public utility namely a banking service, which is component utility for the convenient pursuit of adjudication is an aspect which is a matter of policy, falling normatively within the exclusive choice and discretion of respondent Nos.1 and 2. This Court in exercise of its adjudicatory functions under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit in appeal over policy choices. None of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner warrant intervention in judicial review. No perversity in the conduct of allotment of the site or the decision making process leading to the grant of lease is established. The contention that no space for establishing a branch by the respondent No.3 could be allotted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 without consultation or concurrence of the Bar Association is a contention that is stated to be rejected. For all the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay granted on 06.12.2010 stands dissolved. There shall be no Order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J 18th April, 2011 KSP/PVKS