IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13237 of 2009 Between: J. Surya Kumari, W/o. Narasimha Murthy, R/o. Plot No. 12, Keshav Nagar Colony, New Mettuguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Chief Secretary A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Registrar General, High Court Premises, Hyderabad. 3 Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary C/o. High Court Premises, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by directing the concerned authorities to regularize the Judiciary system in our state by formulating the policies and establishing the machinery for the continuous and non-stop flow of disbursal of justice through out the year with out any breaks, even during the weekends, public holidays and other vacations Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.Baladitya Counsel for Respondent No.1: Government Pleader for General Administration Counsel for Respondent No. 2: Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation with a prayer for a suitable direction for “establishing the machinery for the continuous and non- stop flow of disbursal of justice through out the year without any breaks, even during the weekends, public holidays and other vacations and pass such other orders………”. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there should be some machinery whereby courts should be available round the clock so that matters can be heard even on holidays and at night. 3. The petitioner in her personal capacity has made such a request, but it may not be practicable for the reason that all the lawyers may not be ready and willing to work round the clock for all the 365 days a year. Moreover, looking to the present set up, it may not be possible to do so even if all lawyers are agreeable to work for 365 days a year. 4. Upon asking whether the petitioner is a regularly practicing advocate, the learned advocate for the petitioner has informed that the petitioner had appeared in a Court before six or seven years ago and she is not a regular practitioner. 5. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, it would be just and proper if the petitioner approaches respondent No.3 by way of a representation so that respondent No. 3, after considering the representation made by the petitioner, if it considers the same to be proper, it may approach the concerned authority so that appropriate amendments can be made in the relevant rules for continuous working of the courts. 6. The petition stands disposed of as rejected. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 6th July, 2009 ks