Judicial review is permissible in cases of inaction by the Speaker regarding disqualification petitions, emphasizing the need for timely decisions to uphold democratic principles.

COMMON JUDGMENT:

In all these writ petitions the common question which arises for consideration is “Whether the High Court in exercise of power of the judicial review can issue direction to the Speaker of Legislative Assembly to decide disqualification petitions within a fixed time frame”. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. WP.No.9472 of 2024 is filed by Padi Kaushik Reddy, Bharat Rashtra Samithii (BRS) MLA and WP.No.18553 of 2024 is filed by Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, Bharaitya Janata Party (BJP) MLA and Floor Leader of BJP Legislature Party in Telangana State Legislative Assembly, to declare the action of the respondent No.2-Speaker of the Assembly in not adjudicating their petitions dated 18.03.2024 and 01.07.2024 respectively seeking disqualification of respondent No.5-Danam Nagender, MLA, Khairatabad Constituency, as being arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the spirit of democracy and X Schedule of the Constitution of India and for a direction to the Speaker to receive and decide the disqualification petitions within four weeks/three months.

3. WP.No.11098 of 2024 is filed by Kuna Pandu Vivekananda, BRS MLA, to declare the action of the respondent No.2-Speaker in not acknowledging the receipt of disqualification petitions dated 02.04.2024 and 08.04.2024 filed against the respondent No.5 (Venkata Rao Tellam – MLA of Bhadrachalam Constituency) and respondent No.6 (Kadiyam Srihari – MLA of Station Ghanpur Station Constituency) sent by E-mail and registered post and not initiating the process of deciding disqualification petitions as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of X Schedule of the constitution of India and to direct respondent No.2 to decide disqualification petitions within a period of three months.

4. WP.No.9472 of 2024, being the lead case, the facts therein are set out as under:

(a) The petitioner contested as a member of Telangana Legislative Assembly from Huzurabad Assembly Constituency as a candidate set up by Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) and got declared as elected candidate on 03.12.2023 from Huzurabad Assembly Constituency. It is stated that pursuant to the election notification issued by the Election Commission of India, the respondent No.5 filed his nomination as candidate set up by BRS to 60-Khairtabad Assembly Constituency on 06.11.2023. The respondent No.5 submitted B Form issued by the President of BRS and filed an affidavit in Form No.26 as stipulated under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules.

(b) The respondent No.5 was declared as elected candidate on 03.12.2023 from Khairtabad Assembly Constituency. On 15.03.2024, the respondent No.5 met the Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee President and Chief Minister, Mr. A. Revanth Reddy; Mr. Deep Daas Munshi, All India Congress Committee (AICC) In charge and Deputy Chief Minister, Mr. Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka, along with the other Indian National Congress (INC) leaders and joined INC by wearing INC party Scarf and the same was circulated in the local news papers along with photographs in the leading newspapers such as, Eenadu, Andhra Jyothi etc. and it is a conclusive proof that the respondent No.5 has voluntarily given up membership of BRS and joined INC.

(c) On 18.03.2024, the petitioner along with other members of legislative Assembly met the respondent No.2 and submitted Disqualification Petition under paragraph 2 (1) of the X Schedule read with Article 191 (2) of the Constitution of India under Rule 6 of Members of legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules.

(d) On 21.03.2024, the INC and AICC released a press note selecting candidates for the ensuing general elections to the Lok Sabha wherein the respondent No.5 was declared as a contesting candidate set up by INC Party from Secunderabad constituency. The same was sought to be informed to the respondent No.2 by way of an additional affidavit along with Annexures but the office of the respondent No.2 has not given any appointment to them nor re