The Governor has discretion under Articles 163 and 171 of the Constitution but must act on Cabinet recommendations, which can be withdrawn before a formal decision is made.

ORDER :

1. The application (IA No.195052/2023) for withdrawal of the proceedings is allowed. 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.

2. At this stage, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor submits that the intervenor has applied for transposition. Liberty is granted to the intervenor to institute independent proceedings.

3. The Interlocutory Application is disposed of, permitting withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition in the above terms.

4. Pending applications, if any, including the application for intervention, stand disposed of.”

(i) It is pursuant to the liberty granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of its order dated 11^th July 2023, that the instant PIL petition has been instituted with the prayers as aforementioned.

(j) During pendency of the instant PIL petition, vide Notification dated 14^th October 2024, seven persons have been nominated as members of the Maharashtra Legislative Council by the Hon'ble Governor under Article 171(3)(e) and Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India.

4.1 The petitioner, primarily, has challenged the withdrawal of the nominations recommended on 6^th November 2020 by the State Government and has also prayed that an appropriate order be issued requesting the office of Hon'ble the Governor to either nominate the 12 persons as members of the Legislative Council as recommended on 6^th November 2020 or to return the said recommendations with reasons.

5. In essence, the insistence of the petitioner in the instant PIL petition is that Hon'ble the Governor, by not acting upon the recommendations made by the Council of Ministers on 6^th November 2020 by taking an appropriate decision, has acted contrary to the provisions contained in Article 163(1) read with Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that by not acting upon the recommendations made for nomination of 12 members of the State Legislative Council on 6^th November 2020, Hon'ble the Governor has exercised “pocket veto” which is not permissible as per the mandate of the Constitution contained in Article 163(1) and 171(5) of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as held by this Court in the judgment dated 13^th August 2021 in the PIL petition filed by Mr. Ratan Soli Luth, Hon'ble Governor is not completely denuded of discretion while acting under Article 171(3)(e) read with Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India and accordingly, it is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that Hon’ble Governor ought not to have acted as a rubber stamp on the decision of the Cabinet dated 10^th August 2022 as communicated by Hon’ble the Chief Minister vide letter dated 23^rd August 2022.

7. It has further been argued on behalf of the petitioner that while considering the Cabinet decision dated 10^th August 2022 as communicated by the letter dated 23^rd August 2022, it was incumbent upon Hon'ble the Governor to consider the material on the basis of which the earlier recommendations were sought to be withdrawn by the State Government especially keeping in view the mandate of this Court contained in the judgment dated 13^th August 2021. It has also been contended that the decision to withdraw the earlier recommendation got precipitated on account of change of Government and therefore, this aspect ought to have been taken into account by Hon'ble the Governor while returning the earlier recommendations based on the decision of the Cabinet dated 10^th August 2022, keeping in view that in respect of earlier recommendations, t