Telangana High Court: The present writ petition was filed to declare respondents’ action in not considering letter dated 3-2-2024 submitted by petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Nagesh Bheemapaka, J., directed Respondent 2, the State of Telangana to consider the candidature of Mohammed Ali Hyder, as a representative of Shia Community before the State Legislative Council.
The Shia Civil Council for Social Justice (‘the Council’), operated from Hyderabad, Telangana and aimed to address the financial and equal opportunity challenges faced by Shia Community across India. Petitioners submitted that despite promises from the political leaders during elections, the communities lacked representation in government bodies. The Council, therefore, submitted representation before the Government of Telangana and the Governor on 3-2-2024 to consider the candidature of Mohammed Ali Hyder, a B.Sc. Computer Graduate, as a representative before the State Legislative Council seeking recognition from the Governor of Telangana, as he had the ability to communicate effectively and promote Shia Community’s values peacefully. The Head of the Community conducted voting among all the other members who elected Mohammed Ali Hyder to become the first Member of Legislative Council from Shia Community in Telangana.
Petitioners stated that earlier they filed a writ petition, wherein this Court directed respondents to consider the Council’s representation dated 27-12-2022, however, the said directive remained unimplemented by Respondent 6, Telangana State Wakf Board.
Petitioners thus sought relief from the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the letter dated 3-2-2024 to look into the socio-economic, political, and educational poor conditions of Shia Community and do the needful by nominating a Shia Muslim community member in Telangana Legislative Council under Governor’s quota for the upliftment of their community, thus fulfilling the objectives and enactment of Article 171(5) of the Constitution which prescribed that members to be nominated by the Governor under Article 171(3)(e) should have special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters like literature, science, art, co-operative movement, and social service.
The Court relied on Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court held that the Court could not implead or issue notices to the President or the Governor as they were not answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of their powers and duties, as Article 361 of the Constitution conferred immunity to the President and the Governor. The Court also relied on S. Nalini v. Governor of T.N., 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 9086, wherein it was held that the Governor was protected under Article 361 of the Constitution and was not answerable to any Court with respect to discharge of his duties. Thus, the Court held that it could not direct Respondent 5, the Personnel Secretary to the Governor Excellency to consider the letter dated 3-2-2024.
The Court after considering that petitioners submitted the said letter to the Chief Minister, keeping in view the directions issues by this Court and the percentage of population of Shia Community, disposed of the writ petition and directed Respondent 2 to consider the letter dated 3-2-2024 submitted by petitioners and take necessary steps in accordance with law.
[Syed Hyder Raza Naqvi v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 4610 of 2024, Order dated 1-4-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Venkat Raghu Mannepalli, Counsel
For the Respondents: A. Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate General; Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General; Government Pleader for Social Welfare for Respondent 2; Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development on behalf of Respondent 3
Buy Constitution of India HERE
