When a higher court is already seized of a matter involving the same legal issues and has passed interim orders affecting the subject matter, the lower court may dispose of the petition by granting liberty to the parties to approach the higher court.

ORDER:

The petitioner challenges the G.O.Ms.No.71, General Administration (Elecs.D) Department, dated 26.04.2026, issued by respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. He seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and appoint Sri Mohammed Ali Hyder, a representative of the Pasumanda Shia Muslim community, as a Member of the Legislative Council under the Governor’s quota under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri V.R. Mannepalli, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5; learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department, appearing for respondent No.3; learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare Department, appearing for respondent No.4; and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent No.9.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Pasumanda Shia Muslim community in the State of Telangana has allegedly remained socially and economically backward and has not received adequate representation in public offices and legislative institutions. He submits that several representations were submitted by the petitioners to various constitutional authorities, including the President of India, the Governor of Telangana, and other Government authorities, seeking social justice and representation for the community. He further submits that Sri Mohammed Ali Hyder has been actively involved in social and religious activities concerning the Shia Muslim community and is stated to have rendered services in the field of education and welfare activities. According to the learned counsel, the candidature of Sri Mohammed Ali Hyder deserved consideration for nomination as a Member of the Legislative Council under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India. He further submits that, despite various earlier litigations and representations, the official respondents proceeded to issue G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 26.04.2026 recommending/approving nominations to the Legislative Council, which, according to him, was done contrary to law and in disregard of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connected proceedings.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in similar circumstances, W.P.Nos.180 and 181 of 2024 were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.34897 of 2024 and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 14.08.2024, passed the following order:

“Delay condoned.

Issue notice, returnable within four weeks.

Till further orders, the impugned judgment of the High Court shall remain stayed.

Any nominations made in the meantime shall remain subject to the final outcome of this petition.”

3.2. Learned counsel further submits that the said proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court directly concern the legality and validity of nominations made under the Governor’s quota and, therefore, the present issue is substantially connected with the matter pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. Having considered the submissions, and perused the record, the grievance of the petitioners relates to the G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 26.04.2026 concerning nominations under the Governor’s quota in terms of Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners seek a consequential direction for consideration of a particular individual, namely Sri Mohammed Ali Hyder, for such nomination.

5. However, it may be noted that the petitioners have placed reliance upon the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.34897 of 2024 arising out of similar issues relating to nominations under the Governor’s quota. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has pa