APHC010014042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1683/2026 Between: TUPAKULA APPA RAO, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.4-108, NIDAMARRU VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 522237 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATAMATA POLICE STATION, PATAMATA, VIJAYAVYADA, NTR DISTRICT. 520010 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, O/O DIVISIONAL COOPERATIVE OFFICER, 2ND FLOOR, AMC COMPLEX, GOVERNERPET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 520002 4. THE III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND MUNICIPAL COURT, BESANT ROAD, REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH, 52001 5. THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, CIVIL COURTS COMPLEX, REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT, SURYARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.1683 of 2026 Dated 21.01.2026 Counsel for the Petitioner: Y SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court Vijayawada in conducting trial in CC.No.1131 of 2015 after it was transferred to it by the Principal District and Sessions Court Machilipatnam from Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court Vijayawada even after lapse of more than two decades as arbitrary violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and further direct the 4th respondent i.e. Ill Addl Metropolitan Magistrate and Municipal Court Besant Road Vijayawada to conduct and complete the trial within the specified time to be fixed by the Honble Court or in the alternative quash the same and to pass….” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his case in C.C. No.1131 of 2015 has not been disposed of by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, even after eleven years. 3. The petitioner, being the accused in the above said C.C., is entitled to a speedy trial, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.1683 of 2026 Dated 21.01.2026 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner sought expeditious disposal of C.C.No.1131 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1, at paragraph No.86 (10) held as under: “(10) It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time-limit for trial of offences. Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint. The Supreme Court of USA too has repeatedly refused to fix any such outer time-limitin spite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit ineffectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.” 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P2 at paragraph No.32 held as under: “32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.” 7. It is observed that the practice of giving directions to the learned Trial Courts fixing the schedule for disposal of the cases were deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and High Court Bar 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.1683 of 2026 Dated 21.01.2026 Association, Allahabad supra. However, the right to speedy disposal is one of the facets of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of C.C. No.1131 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial). 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 21.01.2026 RSI 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.1683 of 2026 Dated 21.01.2026 37 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1683 of 2026 Date: 21.01.2026 RSI