Live
- Chandrababu Congratulates Gukesh on Historic Chess Achievement
- How Long Can You Safely Wear Makeup?
- ED conducts raids at two places in Bengal in chit fund case
- BJP Tamil Nadu President Expresses Confidence In Resolving Tungsten Mining Concerns In Madurai
- Karnataka Reviews Lake Safety Ahead of Monsoon: Minister Bhosaraju Tells Upper House
- Udupi MP’s queries, More key highways on high-priority
- Investing in Skills: Education Loans Paving the Way for Career Success
- Ghaggar river’s two stretches identified as polluted: Govt
- ICC chief Jay Shah meets Brisbane 2032 Olympics organising committee CEO
- Oxford Grammar High School Celebrates 44th Annual Sports Day with Grandeur
High Court reserves orders for today
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B Bhosale and Justice P Naveen Rao reserved for orders till Tuesday on the writ appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh state government challenging the interim order given by single judge in YSRCP MLA R K Roja\'s case. Earlier, Justice Ramalingeswar Rao had, by an interim order,
Hyderabad: The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B Bhosale and Justice P Naveen Rao reserved for orders till Tuesday on the writ appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh state government challenging the interim order given by single judge in YSRCP MLA R K Roja's case. Earlier, Justice Ramalingeswar Rao had, by an interim order, stayed the resolution passed by the Andhra Pradesh state Assembly suspending Roja for one year. The AP government has filed a writ appeal challenging this interim order.
The division bench heard the arguments of senior counsels P P Rao who appeared for AP government and Indira Jaisingh who appeared on behalf of Roja for the entire day on Monday. Rao contended that the matter was one within the exclusive domain of the Assembly and would thus not warrant judicial interference.
Rao contended that mentioning a wrong Rule in the motion moved by Legislative Affairs Minister would not amount to 'substantial illegality' as observed by the learned single judge. He also quoted a few judgments to make the proposition that a wrong reference to power cannot vitiate the action of the authority as long as it has power to act in that manner.
He felt that reference to Rule 340 sub rule (2) of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in AP Legislative Assembly is being used to defeat the decision of the entire House suspending the MLA for a period of one year. He also pleaded that freedom of speech does not give one the right to abuse a person and therefore Roja deserves extreme penalty for her remarks.
Rao closed his arguments by praying for suspension of the interim order passed by the single judge as it amounted to granting the main relief asked by the petitioner and nothing substantial would remain. Roja's counsel Indira Jaisingh at the outset raised the issue of maintainability of the writ appeal as it was filed by the AP state government instead of the AP Legislative Assembly, which is actually the aggrieved party by the interim order of the single judge.
She said that with the Assembly not filing an appeal, it can be presumed that the Assembly is not aggrieved by the order. She rebutted the argument that a mistaken reference to a Rule cannot take away the authority of the House to act by questioning what prevented the House from correcting the mistake till date. She said that the respondents admitted before the court that it was a mistake to refer to Rule 340 in the resolution.
That mistake can be corrected only by the House and not the court or government, she asserted. She also urged the bench to take note of the fact that despite the interim order her client was not allowed into the Assembly and that they are in contempt of court. She also said rules of natural justice were given a go by in this case and therefore the writ appeal must not be allowed.
