1. Resignation of member of State Legislative Council — Inaction by Chairman — Writ petition seeking mandamus to compel decision. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
JAYAMANGALA VENKATA RAMANA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 21941/2025
1. Resignation of member of State Legislative Council — Inaction by Chairman — Writ petition seeking mandamus to compel decision. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
2. Petitioner: Chairman bound to accept voluntary resignation — Respondent: Chairman has discretion to inquire into voluntariness and genuineness. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. Writ allowed — Chairman directed to complete inquiry and decide resignation within four weeks. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 )
No, the discretion is not absolute; it is limited to verifying voluntariness and genuineness and is subject to judicial review for reasonableness. (Para 25 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 61 )
The inquiry should be completed within a fortnight to a month at most, as indicated in parliamentary debates. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 63 , 68 )
Yes, inaction for over nine months without initiating inquiry is arbitrary and violates Article 14 and Wednesbury reasonableness. (Para 56 , 62 , 64 )
The inquiry is limited to ascertaining if the resignation is voluntary and genuine; no roving inquiry into underlying motives is permitted. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 )
Yes, the court can direct completion of the inquiry within a reasonable time to prevent abuse of discretion. (Para 68 , 69 )
The Court made the following ORDER:
Heard Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner; Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General for the Respondent No.1, Sri R. Satish Babu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G. SubbaRao, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing through online, assisted by Sri V. Venkata Saketh Roy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3.
2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
"For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of Respondent No.3 - the Hon‘ble Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council in failing to act upon and failing to either accept or reject the Resignation dated 23.11.2024 submitted by the Petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India and Rule 186 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly , and in violation of principles of natural justice, and Consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to forthwith consider the said resignation dated 23.11.2024 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders as this Hon‘ble Court deems fit and proper to the circumstances of the case.
3. FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts emanating from the present Writ Petition, which are also submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, are that the Writ Petitioner has served as an Executive Secretary under Telugu Desam Party (in short T.D.P) since the year 2005 and had also been elected as a „Member‟ of Kaikalur Zilla Praja Parishad Territorial Constituency. Prior to the Writ Petitioner coming into public service, he was an Aqua Culture farmer and the Petitioner‟s livelihood was dependent on it. He came into politics since the year 1999. It is further submitted that the Petitioner contested in the General Elections in the year 2009 and was elected as M.L.A from Kaikalur Assembly Constituency. The Petitioner has lost his election in the year 2019 with a slender margin of 4% of votes as against the candidate belonging to Yuvajana Sramkina Raithu Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as YSRCP). It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioner has joined in the YSRCP and was elected as „Member‟ to the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Council on 23.03.2023 (Ex.P.2).
4. Subsequently, the Writ Petitioner had submitted his Resignation on 23.11.2024 (Ex.P.1) as he did not want to continue as „Member‟ of Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Council. The Writ Petitioner would contend against the inaction on the part of the Hon‟ble Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Council in rendering a decision despite the fact that the resignation was submitted by the Writ Petitioner way-back on 23.11.2024.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER
5. Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Article 190 of the Constitution of India and Rule 190 in Chapter-XXII of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council (hereinafter referred to as „Council Rules‟) (Writ Petitioner has wrongly referred to Rule 186 of the A.P State Assembly Rules, while he had to refer to Rule 190 of the A.P State Legislative Council Rules. However, for the sake of convenience, Rule 190 of the A.P. State Legislative Council Rules are referred by the Court). As the discussion would revolve around Article 190 of the Constitution of India and Rule 190 of the Council Rules, the said provisions are usefully extracted hereunder:
“Article 190. Vacation of seats.—(1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of the Legislature of a State and provision shall be made by the Legislature of the State by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of bo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top