Thread by @barandbench

#BombayHighCourt allows PIL seeking Court’s intervention in Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari’s inaction to nominate 12 members recommended by the Maharashtra Council of Ministers to the State Legislative Council.

@BSKoshyari
@CMOMaharashtra

Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni: We have considered arguments and formed the following issues:

Petition maintainability - answered in affirmative.

Governor discretion under Art 171 r/w Representation of People’s Act

Governor’s duty to speak?

Order: It is not impermissible to read authorisation of Clauses 3 and 5 of Art 171 r/w with Representation of People’s Act respect to governor’s decision on nomination.

Order: If we say that everything said has to be believed, we believe there were reasons for the governor to have not given his reasons.

Order: It is mature governance between the Centre and State, that should there be misunderstanding between the two, and minor disagreements those ought to be resolved between the CM and governor. The same have to be made known to each other.

Order: Further action ought to have been taken and Rule 16 of the Rules of business could be one of the Rule. Seats of the legislative council, cannot be vacant indefinitely.

Order: It is in such circumstances that duty of Governor and his reservations about the recommendees has to be read in Section 10 of the ROP Act read with Article 171 or else the statutory intent would stand defeated.

Order: We declare the public law that there is obligation on the Governor to accept or return the recommendations as made by part of advice has to be decided within reasonable time. 8 months is sufficient a time in the present facts.

Order: Of course the governor is not answerable to the Court. Hence petitioner has not joined the secretary. Things will now be set right at an early date.
If the Governor has taken decision by now, that is taken care of the Petitioner’s grievance.