As per the petition, which has been filed by five people, the decision taken by the Shinde-led government, which does not even have a cabinet, cannot stand legal scrutiny.
A petition was filed before the Bombay High Court on Monday, which challenged the decision of the Eknath Shinde-led Maharashtra government and his deputy Devendra Fadnavis, to stay orders related to appointments and developmental projects taken up by the earlier Uddhav Thackeray-led cabinet in June this year.
The plea states: “The Chief Minister is not empowered either under the Constitution or under the Conduct of Business Rules framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India to stay or nullify the decisions of the earlier governor which were lawfully taken.”
The plea also states there was a cabinet that had taken the decision under the aegis of Thackeray. As per the petition, which has been filed by five people, the decision taken by the Shinde-led government, which does not even have a cabinet, cannot stand legal scrutiny.
The petitioners — Kishore Gajbhiye, Ramhari Shinde, Jagannath Abhyankar, Kishore Medhe and Sanjay Lakhe Patil — claimed that communications issued to various departments for staying various projects, schemes and works by the present government approved by the previous government were without jurisdiction.
Many circulars or orders were issued by the previous government which also included the cancellation of the petitioners’ appointment to the Maharashtra State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission.
It is claimed that the decision of the Chief Minister to stay projects and schemes, especially those taken in the interest of Scheduled Castes, Tribes and Backward Classes was arbitrary, unwise and politically motivated.
The plea states that as per Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution of India, there shall be no less than 12 ministers to constitute a Council of Ministers. However, the number was only two since the new chief minister was sworn in.
It is in this light that the plea states that “in the absence of a duly constituted council of ministers, the government ought not to have taken such major decisions of staying the developmental projects and cancellation of appointments…particularly when such decisions were underway and partly implemented.”
The petition states that the decisions taken were taken in furtherance of the interests of marginalised groups that too on the recommendations of the District Planning Committees while following due process and thus “the state could not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power.”
The petition sites various judgments from others courts where it has been ruled that the “political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law.”
The petition filed through Talekar & Associates has thus, prayed for the quashing of these communications. For the purpose of interim protection, it was urged that there may be a stay on their implementation.
