By Express News Service
HYDERABAD: A Division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court on Thursday made it clear that mere failure on the part of Assembly Speaker Kodela Siva Prasada Rao in taking action against defected MLA Bhuma Akhila Priya (from the YSRC to the TDP ) would not make the former “a usurper to the office of the Speaker”. In a relief to Kodela and Akhila Priya, the Bench dismissed the petition filed against the Speaker and the Minister describing it as “not maintainable.”
The Bench also found fault with the petitioner for filing a single writ of quo-warranto against two different Constitutional functionaries (the Speaker and a Minister). “How can a single writ of quo-warranto against two different Constitutional functionaries be maintainable, especially when the grounds on which the quo-warranto is sought against both of them differ?” the Bench enquired.
“A writ of quo-warranto can be issued only when a person holds an office without authority. There is no provision in the Constitution which makes a non-performing Constitutional functionary a usurper. Therefore, the prayer seeking a quo-warranto against the Speaker is wholly misconceived,” the bench noted.
The Bench comprising Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice N Balayogi was passing the order in a petition filed by G Malleswara Rao seeking to restrain the defected MLA Bhuma Akhila Priya from discharging duties of an MLA or of a minister in the State Cabinet. The petitioner sought the court to declare the continuance of Assembly Speaker and the minister concerned in their respective posts as unconstitutional.
Earlier, the registry of the High Court raised an objection for naming the Governor of AP and Telangana ESL Narasimhan as one of the respondents to the present petition and refused to give number to the case. When the matter was placed before a single judge, the latter made it clear that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court Constitution bench, the Governor in his individual capacity should not be made a party. The judge felt that the issue involved public interest and referred the case to the division bench.
After hearing the case, the bench pronounced its orders on Thursday. The bench, in its order, said, “There is also no deeming provision in the Constitution to the effect that if a question regarding the disqualification of a member is not decided within a particular time frame, the member concerned will lose his membership automatically. Failure of the Speaker, deliberate or otherwise, to take a decision, under 10th Schedule of the Constitution, on the question of disqualification of the respondent (Akhila Priya), cannot result in the automatic loss of membership of the Assembly for the respondent.”
Referring to the petitioner’s argument that within six months of being appointed as minister, Akhila Priya should have contested an election, the bench said that Article 164(4) of the Constitution applies only to a person who was not a member of the State legislature. With regard to complaints lodged by the YSRC party members to the Speaker against the defected MLA, the bench made it clear that it was for them (YSRC members) to pursue the matter and the petitioner cannot come up with a proxy litigation since he has no locus standi to pursue those complaints, and dismissed the petition.
