MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday permitted a Nashik-based businessperson Ratan Luth to withdraw his special leave petition on the issue of failure by the State Governor to fill up 12 vacants MLC posts in Maharashtra despite a 2020 recommendation made by then chief minister Uddhav Thackeray‘s Council of Ministers (CoM).
The SLP was against an August 2021 Bombay high court order that had noted that under law it could not issue directions to the Governor but observed that he has an obligation to, within a “reasonable time’’ either accept or reject the recommendations for MLC posts made by State’s council of Ministers (CoM).
On September 26, 2022, the SC bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy had by an interim order in the SLP, directed that “no steps shall be taken in respect of vacancies which were sought to be filled up on the basis of the nomination dated 07.11.2020 and which is the subject matter of the litigation till the next date of hearing.
On Tuesday Luth’s senior counsel A N S Nadkarni submitted before a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra that his client wished to withdraw the SLP. State’s counsel Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with Siddarth Dharmadhikari left it to the SC to decide.
An intervenor, through senior counsel Nikhil Nayyar who was opposed to the withdrawal, submitted that he has “applied for transposition’’ . The SC said, “Liberty is granted to the intervenor to institute independent proceedings.’’
The CJI led bench permitting the withdrawal of Luth’s SLP said, “However, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the question of law raised which is kept open to be agitated in an appropriate case.’’
Luth who runs two schools in Nashik had filed a public interest litigation in 2021 before the HC against the over eight month delay in appointment of 12 nominated MLCs who are chosen for their expertise in various walks of life. Luth had before the HC contended that the then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari’s failure to nominate the 12 MLCs recommended on November 7, 2020 by the Uddhav Thackeray led government’s CoM, affected constitutional rights of citizens too.
With no effective deadline for nomination of the 12 MLCs, Luth had approached the SC on October 25, 2021 with a SLP against the HC order of August 13, 2021. It was, however first heard before the SC over a year later.
The SLP revolved around the purport of Article 171 of the Constitution of India which deals with composition of the Legislative Council of a State and says the number of members cannot be less than 40.
Luth’s senior counsel C U Singh last September had submitted that the nomination to the Legislative Council having been made by the CoM on 07.11.2020, “ it is binding on the Governor and the Governor was expected to act with reasonable dispatch.’’ He had said submitted that on September 5, 2022 in a new development the “Governor deemed it appropriate to return the nomination to the Government’’ and expressed apprehension that “fresh nomination may be made’’ to fill up those 12 vacancies.
The SLP was against an August 2021 Bombay high court order that had noted that under law it could not issue directions to the Governor but observed that he has an obligation to, within a “reasonable time’’ either accept or reject the recommendations for MLC posts made by State’s council of Ministers (CoM).
On September 26, 2022, the SC bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy had by an interim order in the SLP, directed that “no steps shall be taken in respect of vacancies which were sought to be filled up on the basis of the nomination dated 07.11.2020 and which is the subject matter of the litigation till the next date of hearing.
On Tuesday Luth’s senior counsel A N S Nadkarni submitted before a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra that his client wished to withdraw the SLP. State’s counsel Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with Siddarth Dharmadhikari left it to the SC to decide.
An intervenor, through senior counsel Nikhil Nayyar who was opposed to the withdrawal, submitted that he has “applied for transposition’’ . The SC said, “Liberty is granted to the intervenor to institute independent proceedings.’’
The CJI led bench permitting the withdrawal of Luth’s SLP said, “However, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the question of law raised which is kept open to be agitated in an appropriate case.’’
Luth who runs two schools in Nashik had filed a public interest litigation in 2021 before the HC against the over eight month delay in appointment of 12 nominated MLCs who are chosen for their expertise in various walks of life. Luth had before the HC contended that the then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari’s failure to nominate the 12 MLCs recommended on November 7, 2020 by the Uddhav Thackeray led government’s CoM, affected constitutional rights of citizens too.
With no effective deadline for nomination of the 12 MLCs, Luth had approached the SC on October 25, 2021 with a SLP against the HC order of August 13, 2021. It was, however first heard before the SC over a year later.
The SLP revolved around the purport of Article 171 of the Constitution of India which deals with composition of the Legislative Council of a State and says the number of members cannot be less than 40.
Luth’s senior counsel C U Singh last September had submitted that the nomination to the Legislative Council having been made by the CoM on 07.11.2020, “ it is binding on the Governor and the Governor was expected to act with reasonable dispatch.’’ He had said submitted that on September 5, 2022 in a new development the “Governor deemed it appropriate to return the nomination to the Government’’ and expressed apprehension that “fresh nomination may be made’’ to fill up those 12 vacancies.