SABAVAT RAMULU NAIK Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Sabavat Ramulu Naik, has challenged the legality of the order dated 16.01.2019, passed by the Chairman, Telangana Legislative Council ('the Council', for short), the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner was declared as disqualified as a Member of the Council, in terms of Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, and was declared "to cease to be a Member of the Council ('M.L.C.' for short) with immediate effect".

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 20.06.2014 the petitioner was nominated as a M.L.C. by the Governor of Telangana in exercise of powers conferred by sub-Clause (e) of Clause (3) of Article 171 of the Constitution of India, read with Clause (5) of the said Article. However, during the course of his tenure as the M.L.C., the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 submitted a disqualification petition under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 6 of the Members of the Telangana Legislative Council (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules ('the Rules', for short) against the petitioner. In the petition, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claimed that the petitioner was a member of the Telangana Rastra Samithi Party ('TRS Party', for short) on the date of his nomination to the Council. It is on the basis of his membership that he was nominated by the Governor of Telangana on 20.06.2014 as the M.L.C. They further claimed that on 27.10.2018, the petitioner went to New Delhi and joined the Indian National Congress Party ('INC Party', for short) in the presence of its President, Mr. Rahul Gandhi. His joining the INC Party was reported both by the print and electronic media. Furthermore, the petitioner had canvassed for the INC Party in the elections that were conducted on 07.12.2018. Hence his conduct amounts to voluntarily giving up his membership of the TRS Party. Therefore, he should be declared as disqualified as the M.L.C.

(3.) Subsequently, on 18.12.2018 respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his comments within seven days. However, as the petitioner did not receive all the documents attached with the disqualification petition, he sought time of one month to enable him to obtain the copies of certain documents relevant to the case. The petitioner further claims that he had applied, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, for obtaining certain other documents. However, as he did not receive these documents, he requested the respondent No.2 to grant him time for filing his counter. On 11.01.2019, the petitioner requested the respondent No.2 to wait till the papers were received by him under the RTI Act. But, instead of granting him time, the respondent No.2 proceeded with the case, and heard respondent Nos.3 and 4, and reserved the orders. Thereafter, the petitioner was surprised to receive the order dated 16.01.2019, passed by respondent No.2, whereby he was disqualified from being the M.L.C. in terms of Para 2(1)(a) and sub-para (3) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition before this Court.