JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ. - Heard Mr. Y. Surya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. Venkateswarlu Posani, learned standing counsel for High Court appearing for respondent No.2, and Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3. 2. This petition is filed by a practicing Advocate of this Court, seeking a writ of Mandamus directing that the Judges and Division Courts of this Court may also sit in an appropriate building in the premises of Nagarjuna University or in other suitable accommodation till such time suitable accommodation, facilities and other logistics are provided at the present place of functioning of the High Court. 3. It is pleaded that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was constituted by the Hon?ble President of India vide order dated 26.12.2018 under Article 214 of the Constitution of India, taking into account the order passed by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India and in exercise of powers conferred under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 30, sub-section (1) of Section 31 and sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, from the 1st day of January, 2019, with the principal seat of such High Court at Amaravati in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is further pleaded that the High Court is functioning smoothly with the consecrated and dedicated services of the Hon?ble Judges assisted by the Bar since its constitution. 4. It is further pleaded that the Government of Andhra Pradesh brought the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020 (for short, "the Act of 2020?). Section 8 of the said Act provides that the State Government shall endeavour to locate all the Institutions of the State, State Department(s) and instrumentalities of the State in the three capitals and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the State shall, as far as practicable, seek to ensure that the seat of Legislature shall be at the Legislative Capital of Amaravati, the Raj Bhawan, Secretariat and Offices of the Heads of the Departments of Government shall be located at the Executive Capital of Visakhapatnam and the seat of all State Judicial Institutions established under State legislations shall, as far as practicable, be located in the Judicial Capital of Kurnool. 5. 5. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition numbered as W.P.No.1388 of 2020, challenging the constitutional validity of the Act of 2020. The said writ petition along with other writ petitions is pending consideration before the Full Bench. 6. The petitioner states that certain facilities and amenities are lacking in respect of the present building, such as, lack of residential accommodation nearby, lack of facilities for vehicle repairing, long distance of 25 kms. for accessing medical facilities, insufficient canteen facilities etc. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on paragraph 37 of a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Advocates Association v. The Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka,1997 AIR(Kant) 18, wherein it was observed as follows: "37. However, the learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that it is not permissible for this Court to give a direction to the State to implement the project in question in exercise of the power conferred on this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution, as it amounts to directing the Legislature to approve the Budget. I am unable to accept this submission because sub-clause 3(e) of Art.202 of the Constitution of India provides that any sums required to satisfy any judgment, decree or award of any Court or Arbitral Tribunal would be treated as an expenditure charging under consolidated fund of each State. Further, I have also found that the action of the State in not implementing the project is highly arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. Therefore, when the action of the State is either arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair, it is not only permissible for this Court to quash the action of the State but it is also permissible for this Court to give positive direction to the State to discharge its duties, which it is under an obligation to do." 8. In the writ petition filed before the Karnataka High Court, the Advocates Association, Bangalore, had sought for a direction to the respondents therein to demolish the existing old building of the Association and to construct in its place a new building at the premises of the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore. 9. In our considered view, the said judgment has no relevance in the facts of the present case. 10. There is no averment as to why the petitioner has chosen Nagarjuna University to be the premises where the High Court, according to him, should function. 11. 9. In our considered view, the said judgment has no relevance in the facts of the present case. 10. There is no averment as to why the petitioner has chosen Nagarjuna University to be the premises where the High Court, according to him, should function. 11. The prayer made only on the ground of alleged shortcomings and deficiencies, as contended by the petitioner, is misconceived. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is not entertained and is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.