SHILLONG: In a major embarrassment for the CSWO, the High Court of Meghalaya on Thursday dismissed the fresh PIL filed by the organisation seeking disqualification of MLAs who were holding the post of MDCs.
Chief Justice, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, said the petition is a defective one and it has been dismissed only “for its frame and for the pleadings which are unnecessary and which are likely to prevent fair adjudication of the real issues; and the Court has not pronounced on merits of the other issues either way”.
The Court observed that the petition is unacceptable since as far as Entry 9 in the Schedule to the Act of 1972 (which allowed simultaneous holding of MLA-MDC posts) is concerned, the same was deleted by the Amendment Act of 2015.
The Court said the petitioner has always contended that Entry 9 in the Schedule to the Act of 1972 was invalid and was offending the constitution and when the same offending Entry 9 has been deleted by the Amendment Act of 2015, the court sees no reason as to why the Amendment Act of 2015 be at all taken up for enquiry at the instance of the petitioner.
“Obviously, challenge to the Amendment Act of 2015 by the petitioner cuts across and contradicts with the submissions sought to be made in this petition against the Entry 9 in the Schedule to the Act of 1972,” the Court observed.
According to the Court, the only ground for challenging the Amendment Act of 2015 in this petition is that the Amendment Act of 2015 was passed during the pendency of PIL of 2014 and the suggestion by the petitioner that the Amendment Act of 2015 was unconstitutional for having been enacted during pendency of PIL cannot be accepted because mere pendency of the PIL could not have operated against the competence of the State Legislature to enact any such law and the Amendment Act of 2015 cannot be declared ultra vires to the Constitution.
The Court also said that it has not been pleaded by the petitioner that the Amendment Act of 2015 is beyond the legislative competence of the Meghalaya State Legislature or it offends any provision of the Constitution of India.
As far as the nine legislators including the two from Garo Hills are concerned, the Court observed that the matter stands concluded since these legislators had quit the posts of MDCs and hence there is no reason to re-open the same.
However, the Court observed that it had not pronounced on the issues that have been left open by the Full Bench in the order dated August 23, 2016 (which upheld the order of the Governor regarding P.N. Syiem that the post of MDC does not come under the office of profit) and “on the other issues relating to this matter, which may be raised by any person in accordance with law”.
