AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner before this Court, who is appearing in person, has filed the present writ petition praying for the following relief:-
"It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the
1) Bulletin No.10, dated 09.03.2015, 2) Bulletin No.5, dated 10.03.2016 and 3) Bulletin No.12, dated 06.05.2016, issued by the R5, in terms of Para 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires, making the Rules under Section 29-A(9) read with Sections 7, 8, 100(1)(a) and (IV) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and violating the Article 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 31-A r/w 300-A, 39-A, 162, 164(1A) to 5, 167, 170(3) II Proviso 190(3)(a) and (4), 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 212(2), 216, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225, 256, 257, 261, 262, 324, 327, 328 and Tenth Schedule Para 4(2) of the Indian Constitution, consequently set aside (OR) suspended as well as any order made in this regard (OR) Alternatively issue consequential directions to the respondents, in respect of disqualification on conviction for certain offences and to pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
The contention of the petitioner is that in the State of Telangana, Members of Bahujan Samaj Party, some Members of Telugu Desam Legislature Party and some Members of YSR Congress Legislature Party have merged with the Telangana Rashtra Samithi Legislature Party and the same is violative of statutory provision as contained in Representation of People Act, 1951, Article 192 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Orders dated 09.03.2015, 10.03.2016 and 06.05.2016 be declared as null and void.
This Court has heard the party-in-person and perused the record.
In the considered opinion of this Court, merger of Members of one political party into other political party can never be subject matter of a Public Interest Litigation. In the present case, the petitioner has not furnished complete details of Members of Legislative Assembly of various political parties. The petitioner wants a roving enquiry to be done by this Court challenging the three Bulletins. This Court cannot do such a roving enquiry at the behest of the petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the issue involved in the present writ petition cannot be looked into in a Public Interest Litigation, the admission of the writ petition is declined with a liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the other remedies available under the law.
Resultantly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand dismissed.