Governor's Rejection Of Cabinet Recommendations For MLC Posts: Telangana HC Asks Parties For 'Gentleman's Understanding' Till Next Hearing

The Telangana High Court has adjourned the matter relating to the Governor's rejection of MLC recommendations made by the cabinet. The Bench asked the state to come to a 'gentleman's understanding' and not precipitate the issue until the next date of hearing.

The Division Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Surepalli Nanda adjourned the plea on the request of the respondents to allow them time to file objections regarding the maintainability of the plea.

“Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 (The Governor) submits that the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners are not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 361 of the Constitution of India. He, however, prays for a short accommodation to enable him to file an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions,” the Court said.

Last Wednesday, the candidates whose recommendations had been rejected, approached the Chief Justice's Bench through a writ petition, and the registry was directed to number their writ, wherein maintainability was added as the primary issue.

On Friday, when the matter was called, Senior Counsel Aditya Sondhi appearing for the petitioners relied upon Nabam Rebia and Bamang Feliz v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2015) to contend that unless the statute specifically provides for discretion, the Governor cannot use his/her discretion and is bound by the recommendations of the Council of Ministers.

Further, it was also argued that any work carried out in excess of the governor's power was open to judicial review and thus the writs were maintainable.

Senior Counsel S. Ashok Anand Kumar appearing for the Governor on the other hand, contended that the writs were not maintainable under Article 361 (2) of the Indian Constitution and prayed for time to submit his arguments in written format.

During the proceedings, the petitioners prayed for an interim stay on the appointment of alternative members to the MLC, stating that the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings in a similar matter. The respondents fiercely opposed this submission, stating that the plea itself was not maintainable to begin with.

Chief Justice Alok Aradhe orally remarked “Things don't happen overnight, They understand (State), like a gentlemen's understanding you don't do anything till the 24th obviously…. Right now, we will decide on the issue of maintainability, let us first hold it is maintainable. You (State) give your arguments in writing, don't take them by surprise.”

The Advocate General and Senior Counsel A. Sudarshan Reddy was also permitted to file objections in the matter if he so pleased. The matter is listed on the 24^th of January.

W.P. 180 and 181 of 2024

Counsel for petitioners: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, assisted by V. Murli Manohar and Md. Nazeeruddin Khan representing V. Dyumani.

Counsel for respondents: Senior Counsel Anand Kumar representing L. Aravind Reddy.

Click Here To Read/Download Order