The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tiled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the G.O.Rt.No. 485 Law (LA, L,A and J-Home-Courts.A2) Department dated 191 812019 in re-defining the territorialjurisdiction of the Special Courts for CBI Cases at Hyderabad without categorization is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents not to transfer the CC No. 9 of 2013 from the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases at Ga(Ianvihar, Hyderabad to Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam. lA NO: 1 OF 11021 petitiol under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the the G.O.Rt.No 485 Law (LA, LA and J-Home- Courts.A2) Deparlment dated 1gt8l2o19 by directing the respondents not to transfer of Co No. 9 of 2013 from the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases at Gagyanvihar, Hyderabad to Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at ,Visakhapatnam pending Disposal off the main Writ Petition and deem fit and proper in the t:ircumstances of the case. counsel for flhe Petitioner: SRI MOHD GULAM RASOOL(NONE APPEARED Counsel for tlre Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRI M. SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME c.ounserf ,rrtheRespondentNo.3:.ilfli|ffi?,ff t^+T,Jr",1t#U.ililo, SAICHARAN REPRSENTING counsel for flre Respondent No.4: SRt T. SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI The Court made the following: ORDER :...:i::,.,::..-.Ll: i\ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI 2 ORDER: This writ Petition is filed under Article 226 0I the constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: ,,...foissueawritorderordirectionmoreoneinthenatureofWR|T oFMANDAMUSdeclaringtheG.O.Rf'No'485Law(LA'LA& J-Home-Courts.A2)Departmentdatedlg/8/2olginredefiningthe territorialjurisdictionoftheSpecialCourtsforCBlCasesat Hyderabadwithoutcategorization,asillegal,arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aslde the same, consequently direct the respondenfsnoftotransfertheCCNo,gof2013fromthefileof theHon,btePrincipalspeciatJudgeforCBlcasesatGaganvihar, Hyderabad to Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnamandpasssuchotherorderororders...,,

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner'

3. Heard Mr. M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home,appearingonbehalfofrespondentNo.2;Mr.D.Pradeep,learned Assistant Government pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs, appearing for respondent No. 3; and Mr. Ullewad saicharan, learned counsel' representing Mr. T. srujan Kumar Reddy, learned . special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, appearing for respondent No' 4'

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that calendar case No. g of 2013 was transferred consequent upon a change in territorial :I ..:lll[ 'h U!. lii,;; ) N7B,/ IV.P. No. 739 ol202l jurisdiction and renumbered as Calendar Case No. 2'l of 2022 on the file of the leerrned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool. lt is further subnritted that in the said matter, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Criminal Rr:viston Case No. 236 of 2.023, through order dated 21.06.2023, stayed all further proceedings. counsel contends that, following the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the territorial jurisdiction of the Special Courts for cBl cases has been redefined. Earlier, the CBI/ACB exercised jurisdiction through two Courts situated at Visakhapatram and Hyderabad. After the bifurcation, the impugned Government Order restructured the jurisdictional limits of the Special Courts, pafticularly in relation to the districts falling within Hyderabad. According 1o the learned counsel, the said reclefinition is a matter of administrati'ue necessity, fairly justified, and cannot be faulted. on these grounds, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for.

5. ! have, perused the material available on record

6. Havinl3 regard to the contentions raised and in light of the fact that the territorial jurisdiction of the Special Courts for CBI case$ at Hyderabad has been redefined pursuant to the bifurcation of the State, I find no legally sustatinable ground warranting interference with the impugned Government Order, under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. The .Sgope of judicial review under Article 226, particularly in matters involving e_€ .\. ,?l;, =i J A[R, jl' W.P. No.7i9 of 2021 allocation or reallocation of jurisdiction of Special Courts, is limited to examining arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. ln the present case, no Such infirmity has been estabtished. Moreover, the petitioner has not pursued the matter diligently. ln such circumstances, further continuance of this writ petition is unwarranted.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek revival of the proceedings by filing an appropriate ' 1r. appliCation, in the event a surviving cause of action remains which necessitates adjudication. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. t SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To, 1 The Secretary Home Department, Central Secretariat, The Union of lndia, New Delhi.

2. The Principal Secretary The State of Telangana, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

3. The Principal Secretary The State of Telangana, Law Department, TS Secretariat, HYderabad.

4. The Deputy lnspector General of Police, and Head of prq.ng!, cBl, ACB, ' HFera6iO'. iii Ftooi, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan bazaar, Koti,,Hyderabad-

5. One CC to Sri Mohd Gulam Rasool, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy,special Public Prosecutor for cBlloPUCl

7. Two CC to The GP for Home, High Court for the State of Tetangana, at HyderabadtOUTl g. Two CC to The GP for Law And legislative Affairs, High Court for the State of Telangana, at HYderabad[OUT] I

9. Two CD CoPies TKS +TJ HIGH COURT DATED i12711012025 ORDER WP.No.739 of 2021 \ S (9 1 I r[8 2r]2$ * * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS p{ "\)"