Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Machineni Kishan Rao vs Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1997AP275, AIR 1997 ANDHRA PRADESH 275, (1997) 2 ANDHWR 388 (1997) 1 ANDHLD 551, (1997) 1 ANDHLD 551
Author: V. Rajagopala Reddy
Bench: V. Rajagopala Reddy
ORDER P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. Heard on the question of maintainability of the writ petition. Petitioner has sought intervention of this Court in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
a) Writ or order or direction more preferably one in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to consider the unanimous resolution sent to them on 1-11-1996 from M/s. Tclangana Sangharsh Sa-mithi, Hyderabad requesting the respondents 1 to 4 to carve out a separate Telangana State comprising 10 districts namely Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Nalgonda, Nizama-bad, Mahabubnagar, Medak, Khammam, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy districts, and;
b) Direct the respondents 1 to 4 to establish the separate State of Telangana State that is to be carved out from the present Andhra Pradesh State and pass such other order or orders as" this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition are -
(1) Union of India, Represented by Prime Minister, New Delhi; (2) Union of India, Represented by its Secretariat, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi; (3) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Chief Minister, Secretariat Buildings, Saifa-bad, Hyderabad; and (4) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Besides the above-named four respondents, others added as respondents included --(5) Union of India, represented by Vice-Chairman, Planning Commission, New Delhi; (6) The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Government of India, New Delhi; (7) Sri Bezawada Gopal Reddy, former Chief Minister of Andhra State, now residing at Buchireddypalem village and Post, Nellore District; (8) Sri Gouthu Lachanna, former Minister of Andhra State, r/o Sardar Bhavan, Chintalabasthi, Khairatabad P.O., Hyderabad; (9) Sri N. Janardhan Reddy, former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Somajiguda, Hyderabad and (10) The Financial Commission of India represented by its Chairman, New Delhi. Besides the above, Dr. Marri Chenna Reddy, former Minister of Hyderabad State and later Governor of Tamil Nadu (since deceased) was also made a party-respondent in the petition.
3. Contents of the petition make quite an interesting reading and are helpful in prospecting into the history of the re-organisation of States in India including that the then princely State of Hyderabad was merged into the Union of India as a part of its territory, under the Act of the Parliament was made a State, later to be merged with another State carved out of the Madras State of the British India originally called 'Andhra' and after the merger of some parts, of the territory of princely State of Hyderabad after reorganisation with the 'Andhra' so created, the State of 'Andhra Pradesh' was formed under the States Re-organisation Act, 1956. What is objectionable, however, in the entire narration of the events is the complexion given to the facts in the petition as if the creation of the State of Andhra Pradesh was 'an act of oppression upon the people of the State of erstwhile princely State of Hyderabad and politically motivated movements demanding for a separate State of' Telangana have been highlighted as the cause leading to a resolution of a so-called Telangana Sangharsh Samithi' Hyderabad, which is alleged to have adopted a unanimous resolution on 1-11-1996 to request respondents 1 to 4 carve out a separate Telangana State comprising the ten districts as named above.
4. It is not understandable how an advocate and a former Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh has not known that Union of India is not represented by the Prime Minister and the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh is not represented by the Chief Minister. They constitute the Council of Ministers and as the head of the Council of Ministers, advise the President of India and the Governor of the State respectively. The executive power of the Union of India is represented by the President of India and that of the State Government is represented by the Governor of the State. They, however, as provided under the Constitution, act with aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The executive power, however, which the President of India exercises is authenticated and issued in the form of orders and other instruments as specified in the rules framed under Art. 77 of the Constitution of India. The executive power which is exercised by the Governor of the State is authenticated and issued in the shape of orders and other instruments as provided under Art. 166 of the Constitution of India. It is thus clear that naming the first and third respondents in the form as above in the writ petition is wholly misconceived and contrary to the scheme of the Constitution of India. The Union of India as well as the State of Andhra Pradesh are legal entities which are entitled to sue and being sued in the name of the Union of India and the Slate of Andhra Pradesh and whenever they are required to be sued or sue, they "are represented by such executive of the State who is authorised for the particular purpose under the Rules of Executive Business as aforementioned. There is no purpose, however, slated in the writ petition why respondents 5 to 10 have been impleaded as party respondents.
5. This Court's plenary power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government within those territories or even to any Government, authority or person not within its territory but when a cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part-111 and for any other purpose.
6. The instant case is obviously not one for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution. There is some attempt, however, before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner to suggest that Art. 14 of the Constitution of India which falls in Part-III thereof is violated and thus the petition is one seeking enforcement of one of the fundamental rights therein. It is indeed beyond our comprehension how the prayers in the writ petition as noticed by us above are ones referable or relatable to denial of equal protection of law or equality before law either on the ground of discrimination or on the ground of arbitrariness which again is only a facet of discrimination.
7. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State; increasing the area of any State; diminishing the area of any State; altering the boundaries of any State and altering the name of any State, is a subject included in Art. 3 in Part-I of the Constitution of India, which States as follows:
"Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States -- Parliament may by law -
a) form a new Slate by separation of territory from any Stale or by uniting two or more Stales or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
b) increase the area of any State;
c) diminish the area of any State;
d) alter the boundaries of any State;
e) alter the name of any State.
Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.
Explanation I:-- In this Article in clauses (a) to (e), "State" includes a Union Territory, but in the proviso, "State" does not include a Union Territory.
Explanation II:-- The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union Territory by uniting a part of any State or Union Territory to any other State or Union Territory,"
8. The above clearly envisages that something like the petitioner is seeking can be achieved only by a law made by the Parliament and even Parliament cannot do so unless before the Bill is introduced in either House of Parliament, the President makes recommendation for the said purpose and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the areas, boundaries or names of any of the States, the Bill is referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.
9. Petitioner has thus moved this Court to decide what has been assigned to the legislators of the State and the legislators of the two Houses of the Parliament who also cannot act independently unless for the said purpose a recommendation is made by the President of India. In a democratic polity like our republic freedom of speech and expression is a cherished right. People residing thus in any part of the country are free to express their views on all matters except in so far as matters in respect of which law made by the Parliament or the Legislature of the State has imposed restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Courts have also taken the view that, whether any particular law on the subject is referable or not, there are certain inherent common restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression as well as other freedoms enshrined under Art. 19 of the Constitution of India which endanger any of the above and such restrictions must inherently be inferred in cases where the freedom of speech and expression is likely to conflict with the freedom of other citizens who may have the opposite view.
10. We are of the considered view that matters which people's representatives arc competent to raise are sought to be raised by an advocate in this Court. His past experience as a Member of Legislative Assembly and as a Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh has not helped him, it seems, in restraining himself from invoking this Court's jurisdiction for purposes which are of political nature than for redressal of any legal injury. While the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary and since it is granted by the Constitution, this Court is competent to decide on its own jurisdiction in any matter. There are certain self-imposed restraints which the Courts have scrupulously adopted which include the exercise of the often repeated refrain that Courts are not a battle field to settle political disputes and are not so equipped that they can pronounce upon any issue of political expediency.
11. For the reasons aforementioned, we hold that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed at the threshold.
12. Petition dismissed.