HYDERABAD: Citing various Supreme Court judgments, the Telangana government on Tuesday contended that the courts cannot interfere in the policy decisions being taken by it in the discharge of its executive powers conferred by the constitution of India. Besides, the political opponents have no locus standi to file PIL cases against Cabinet decisions such as a proposal to demolish the existing Secretariat buildings and so on. When the government’s policy decisions were not against the Constitution, having judicial review is not proper, it argued.
State advocate general BS Prasad made these submissions before the bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice A Abhishek Reddy dealing with batch of PILs filed separately in 2016 by Congress MLA T Jeevan Reddy, advocate T Rajinikanth Reddy and the Forum for Good Governance, an NGO represented by its secretary M Padmanabha Reddy, seeking stay on shifting the offices of Telangana Secretariat to other buildings and demolition of existing structures to construct new buildings in its place.
Last year, Congress MP A Revanth Reddy and Prof PL Vishweshwar Rao, vice-president of Telangana Jana Samithi, also filed PILs challenging the impending demolition of Secretariat buildings.
The AG told the court that the technical committee, in its report, found that it is not possible to make changes to the existing Secretariat buildings with eight blocks. These blocks are located in congested places where the fire brigade vehicles cannot enter. Besides, the life span of these blocks is only 50- 60 years, which has already lapsed. Except for two blocks, other blocks were in working condition. The electric wiring in these buildings is more than 25 years old. After the AP government vacated the blocks in June last year, all those buildings were lying vacant and the State government is spending `5 crore per annum towards power bills, he noted.
Disputing with the above submissions, senior advocate S Satyam Reddy, appearing for Jeevan Reddy, urged the court to issue directions to inspect the buildings by an independent body. Refusing to consider the plea of senior advocate, the bench posted the matter to March 5 for further hearing.