(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing an appropriate direction to the Government of Andhra Pradesh restraining it from functioning under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) On 31st August, 1956, the Parliament of the Republic of India passed the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, to come into effect from the 1st day of November, 1956, providing, inter alia, for the disintegration of the State of Hyderabad and incorporating different parts of the same with other States. The petitioner, who is a citizen of India and a permanent resident of the defunct Hyderabad State, has attacked the validity of the Act on various grounds. He alleged that the Prime Minister of India made up his mind to disintegrate the State of Hyderabad without consulting the Cabinet and brought it about by taking the necessary steps and that the Committees appointed, the Governments concerned, the Legislatures of the States and the Parliament faithfully implemented his scheme. He averred that the Hyderabad State could only be distintegrated by convening a constitutional assembly to achieve that object and that, as this was not done, the Constitution of the Republic of India could not affect its legal existence. He further stated that the division of India on linguistic basis created fissiparous tendencies and started a de-vitalising and disruptive process to the detriment of the best interests of the Nation. He finally attacked the Validity of the Act on the ground that the Constitution did not confer any such right on the Parliament to abolish States recognised by it and that, in any event, the procedure prescribed was not followed.
(3.) The Government of Andhra"Pradesh, in their counter, pointed out that the allegations made against the Prime Minister and the Congress Committee were irrelevant. They averred that the Act was passed by the Parliament in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Constitution and in strict compliance with the procedure prescribed, thereunder. They took the preliminary objection that the application was not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner did not disclose how his personal interest was violated or affected by the passing of the Act and also for the reason that the petitioner did not state the precise relief he wanted and the form in which it should be given to him.