IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.11908 OF 2011 DATED:26.4.2011 Between: Dr. (Captain) Lingala Panduranga Reddy … Petitioner And The Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Rep. by Home Secretary North Block, Central Secretariat New Delhi and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.11908 OF 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. The relief sought in this writ petition may be noticed: “… issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not taking further steps for the formation of separate State of Telangana in pursuance of its 9-12- 2009 decision as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to direct the first respondent to immediately take further steps for introduction of a Bill in the Parliament for formation of separate State of Telangana…” As seen from the relief prayed for, a writ is sought on the strength of statement dated 9-12-2009 made by the Hon’ble Minister for Home, reproduced hereunder; “The process of forming the state of Telangana will be initiated. An appropriate resolution will be moved in the State Assembly. We have requested the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to withdraw the cases filed on or after November 29, 2009 against all the leaders, students and others associated with the present agitation. The Chief Minister has informed us that he will take the necessary steps in this regard. We are concerned about the health of Shri K. Chandrasekhar Rao. We request him to withdraw his fast immediately. We also appeal to all concerned, especially the students, to withdraw their agitation and help restore normalcy.” 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the above statement of the Hon’ble Home Minister makes it imperative on the Union of India to introduce a Bill in the Parliament to form a separate Telangana State. The contention needs to be appreciated in the light of Article 3 of the Constitution extracted hereunder; 3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States.- Parliament may by law – (a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State; (b) increase the area of any State; (c) diminish the area of any State; (d) alter the boundaries of any State; (e) alter the name of any State; Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.” 3. It is the aforementioned provision of the Constitution which deals with formation of the States but even its in-depth reading does not speak of any enforceable duty or obligation in law which would require the Parliament to introduce a Bill on the basis of a statement made by the Minister. It is very clear that legislation for purposes of formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States is the province and power of the Parliament and none else and as per proviso to Article 3 a Bill proposing formation of a new State can be introduced in either house of Parliament only on the recommendation of the President. Going by the relief sought, it is manifest that the petitioner in essence aims at a direction to be passed by this Court requiring Her Excellency the President to make recommendation for introduction of the Bill with a further direction to the Parliament to make the law bringing into being a new State which direction is not possible, for the simple reason that formation of a new State is a legislative power vested by Article 3 in the Parliament subject to proviso appended thereto. On the face of the mandate of Article 3 of the Constitution this writ petition is misconceived. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court – S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[1], R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India[2], Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India[3], Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[4], Destruction of Public and Private Properties, in Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh[5] and B.P.Singhal v. Union of India[6]. These judicial pronouncements have considered and laid down power to issue a positive mandamus to do a particular act in a particular way when there is a power coupled with a duty [see (5) supra)]. Para 17 of the said decision is relevant and extracted hereunder: “17. The power of this Court also extends to laying down guidelines. In Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms[7] this Court observed: (SCC p.309 paras 19-20) “19. …it is not possible for this Court to give any directions for amending the Act or the statutory Rules. It is for Parliament to amend the Act and the Rules. It is also established law that no direction can be given which would be contrary to the Act and the Rules. 20. However, it is equally settled that in case when the Act or rules are silent on a particular subject and the authority implementing the same has constitutional or statutory power to implement it, the Court can necessarily issue directions or orders on the said subject to fill the vacuum or void till the suitable law is enacted.” The cases cited above also deal with and uphold power of judicial review of the Constitutional Courts with respect to orders passed by constitutional and legal functionaries. As mentioned above, no enforceable duty or obligation is discernible on the facts of the present case and no decision is taken which would call for a judicial review. 5. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 26-4-2011 LR copy to be marked B. Narsinga Rao Note:1. C.C. in three days. 2. L.R. copy to be marked. (B.O) B. Narsinga Rao [1] AIR 1994 SC 1918 = (1994) 3 SCC 1 [2] 1994 Supp (1) SCC 324 [3] 2006 (2) SCC 1 [4] (2006) 8 SCC 161 [5] (2009) 5 SCC 212 [6] (2010) 6 SCC 331 [7] (2002) 5 SCC 294