Whether court can review the consent order on the ground that it was entered when the President rule was in force in the state?

  The contention as urged on behalf of the State that an approval of the elected Government was required to be taken to the consent terms when the consent terms were executed on 10 December 2019 and filed before the Court on 12 December 2019 also cannot be accepted. There is no provision in the Constitution being pointed out on behalf of the State, which would require any ratification by the elected Government, of a decision taken by the President acting through the Governor during the subsistence of the President's Rule, after the President's rule is revoked. Such contention of Mr. Anturkar if accepted would do violence to the Constitutional scheme, as discussed above, and result into a chaotic situation bringing about uncertainty in the affairs of the State. This was never the intention of the Constitution makers in  having provisions of Article 356(1) of the Constitution and providing for conferring of powers on the Governor by the President of India during the President's rule. The Constitutional scheme does not make any provision for such ratification. Thus, Mr.Anturkar's contention that an approval of the appropriate Government was not taken when the consent terms were filed before this Court, so as to have a continuous authorization, deserves to be rejected.

{Para 54}

Bombay High Court

Manaj Tollway Private Limited vs The State Of Maharashtra ... on 5 March, 2021

Bench: G. S. Kulkarni

REVIEW PETITION (L.) No. 4505 of 2020

          IN

COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 310 OF 2019

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page