IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10551 of 2008 Between: Suresh Bodge, S/o. Ch. Bodge, 3-13-366, Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad. ....Petitioner And 1. Smt. Majji Sarada 2. Dr. P.V. Ranga Rao 3. Dr. A. Chakrapani 4. Dr. (Smt). K. Rajyalakshmi 5. Jupudi Prabhakar Rao 6. Shaik Hussain 7. Smt. Revu Ratnakumari 8. D. Rajeswar Rao, 9. Dr. M.V. Rao 10. Kanukula Janardhan Reddy, 11. Bhudati Radha Krishnaiah 12. B. Kamalakar Rao …Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of the quo-warranto or otherwise against the respondents herein fro holding the office of the Members of the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh Under the Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.L.N. Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) This is a public interest litigation wherein a writ of quo warranto has been prayed for. The petitioner has challenged the validity of nomination of the respondents as Members of Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh under the provisions of Article 171(3) (e) read with Article 171 (5) of the Constitution of India. Learned Advocate, Sri K.L.N.Rao, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the nomination of the respondents as Members of Legislative Council by His Excellency the Governor of Andhra Pradesh is not valid and, therefore, a writ of quo warranto be issued so as to quash the appointments made by nomination. So as to substantiate his case, it has been submitted by him that as per the provisions of Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India, His Excellency the Governor should have nominated persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters pertaining to literature, science, art, co-operative movement and social service. According to him, the respondents, who have been nominated, are not qualified persons or are not proper persons to be nominated as per the provisions of Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India. When a query was raised as to whether the petitioner was aware of the qualifications possessed by the respondents, the learned Advocate could not answer the same. Even in the affidavit supporting the petition, nothing has been stated with regard to qualifications or disqualification of the persons who have been nominated as Members of Legislative Council. The learned Advocate has also not denied the fact that the nominating authority of the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh has not been joined as one of the respondents in the petition. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Har Sharan v. Chandra Bhan[1] and has submitted that by virtue of the law laid down in the said judgment, the respondents could not have been nominated as Members of the Legislative Council. We have gone through the said judgment. The learned Advocate has submitted that he was relying upon the observations made in paragraphs 21 and 23 of the said judgment. Upon perusal of the contents of the said judgment, we find that the said judgment does not help the petitioner at all. On the contrary, it appears from the contents of the said judgment that nomination under the provisions of Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India would be bad if the person nominated is not qualified or when a person, who could not be elected in the election and only with an intention to do favour to such a person, the nomination under the provisions of Article 171(5) of the Constitution is made. If that is the allegation, the petitioner should have come out with a case that with an oblique motive, the respondents, who contested the election, but could not be elected, have been nominated as Members of Legislative Council by His Excellency the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. We do not find such an allegation in the affidavit, which has been filed in support of the petition. For the afore-stated reasons, we do not find any substance in this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 17th July, 2008 R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. ........REGISTRAR ARS [1] AIR 1962 Allahabad 301