HC to hear at 2.30 p.m. Telangana government’s writ petition seeking Governor’s approval of budget

The State government has not yet received the consent from the Governor with regard to the budget to be presented on February 3

A bench of Telangana High Court headed by Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan began hearing of the writ petition, filed by Telangana government seeking a direction to Governor to approve the file pertaining to budget presentation, on Monday afternoon.

Presenting his contentions, Mr. Dave said the Governor had no discretion when it comes to matters pertaining to presentation of the budget. Reading out the provisions of the Constitution, the senior counsel said that “Governon shall cause to be laid the budget before the Assembly on the advice of the council of Ministers”. The Governor had no choice but to summon the House of Assembly for presentation of the budget, he argued.

The CJ sought to know from the senior counsel if the HC had power to review the actions of the Governor. As Mr. Dave began his arguments, CJ Ujjal Bhuyan asked him why did the State want the judiciary to drag into the controversy by seeking a direction to Governor. Mr. Dave replied that there was a catena of judgements by the Supreme Court which said the Governor had no power to take independent decisions on matters like Money Bills.

As the senior counsel continued his arguments, the CJ suggested to him “why cannot the two constitutional authorities sit across the table and resolve the issues”. Stating that he had read from the newspapers about developments in Tamil Nadu Assembly, the CJ observed that “but there they were on talking terms”.

The hearing was supposed to continue after the lunch break but the Telangana High Court closed the writ petition ‘after both the parties came to an understanding’ and decided to complete all formalities from their respective ends.

Telangana HC senior counsel S. Ashok Anand Kumar, who appeared for the Governor office, presented to the bench headed by Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan that he would resolve the issue amicably in consultation with Mr. Dave.

When the bench assembled after lunch break, the two counsels informed the bench that both parties decided to resolve the issue. The bench closed the petition noting that both parties discussed positively about the issues.