Bombay HC Requests Shinde Regime Response; Wants to Know Reason for Stay on Uddhav Government Orders

The Maharashtra government has been ordered by the Bombay High Court to respond to a lawsuit that challenges its decision to suspend circulars pertaining to certain appointments and development initiatives undertaken by the former Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) administration. When ordering the reply affidavit to be submitted by August 17, a division bench led by Justice S V Gangapurwala said it would like to hear the cause (behind the decision).

P P Kakade, a government pleader, requested time to respond to the plea; his request was granted. "We want to know the cause... We may not discuss the validity of the justification, the court ruled.

S B Talekar, the attorney for the petitioners, then requested a status quo order. However, the bench stated that as the dispute is currently pending, no such order of status quo would be necessary. The petition claimed that the current administration, led by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, had issued four government resolutions (GRs) cancelling orders made by the previous MVA dispensation, which was led by Shiv Sena president Uddhav Thackeray. The petition was filed by five people, some of whom were former Indian Administrative Service officers and social workers.

Following the fall of the Shiv Sena-led coalition government, Shinde and Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis took their oaths as chief ministers on June 30. Shinde hasn't yet added to his current two-person cabinet. The plea stated that "the resolutions under dispute are without jurisdiction and the Chief Minister (Shinde) is not authorised to stay or overturn the decisions of the prior government, which were made in accordance with the law."

According to the petition, just two ministers are now in office, despite the requirement of at least 12 under Article 164(1A) of the Constitution for the formation of a Council of Ministers. The petition, which contested a number of resolutions passed between July 20 and July 25, stated that "the government ought not to have taken such major decisions of staying developmental projects and cancelling appointments of members of statutory boards, commissions, and committees" in the absence of a duly constituted Council of Ministers.

It claimed that non-official members' appointments to statutory bodies, committees, and initiatives were all halted. "The decision to overturn instructions issued by the previous (Thackeray) administration was made without a valid justification and passed