In a landmark verdict, the ______ High Court held that the names of judges to be appointed to the posts of Lokayukta and Upalokayukta should emanate only from the Chief Justice of the High Court, and no other constitutional authority involved in the selection process could suggest names A Division Bench comprising Justice N. Kumar and Justice H.S. Kempanna, which interpreted the provision of the _______ Lokayukta Act for the first time because of the controversy over the process of appointment adopted by the State, also set aside the appointment of Chandrashekaraiah, a former judge of the High Court, as Upalokayukta for the reason that the Chief Justice had not recommended his name.--

In a landmark verdict, the ______ High Court held that the names of ju

1.	In a landmark verdict, the ______ High Court held that the names of judges to be appointed to the posts of Lokayukta and Upalokayukta should emanate only from the Chief Justice of the High Court, and no other constitutional authority involved in the selection process could suggest names A Division Bench comprising Justice N. Kumar and Justice H.S. Kempanna, which interpreted the provision of the _______ Lokayukta Act for the first time because of the controversy over the process of appointment adopted by the State, also set aside the appointment of Chandrashekaraiah, a former judge of the High Court, as Upalokayukta for the reason that the Chief Justice had not recommended his name.--
A.	Karnataka
B.	Andhra Pradesh
C.	Tamil Nadu
D.	Kerala
Answer» B. Andhra Pradesh