Pending similar case in SC, HC defers PIL against Gov for 6 weeks

Panaji, Aug 24 (UNI) With the Supreme Court entertaining similar case related to Assam on August 27, the Panaji Bench of the Bombay High Court here today deferred its verdict by six weeks on a Public Interest litigation challenging the Goa Government's appointment of five politicians with cabinet rank as unconstitutional and drain on the state exchequer.

The Panaji Bench comprising Justice R M S Khandeparkar and Justice R S Mohite told the petitioner Aires Rodrigues that he had the liberty to move the matter in the Supreme Court for allowing it to be heard along with the other petition against Assam Government.

It might be recalled that Digambar kamat Government had appointed Mr Nilkanth Harlankar, Mrs Victoria Fernandes and Mr Francisco Silveira as Parliamentary Secretaries with cabinet status.

It had also conferred cabinet status on Economic Development Corporation (EDC) Chairman Mr Agnelo Fernandes, Deputy Chairman of Goa Planning Board Dr Wilfred De Souza and Commissioner of NRI Affairs Eduardo Faleiro.

Social activist Advocate Airers Rodrigues however, withdrew the case against Mrs Victoria Fernandes from the perview of the petition as the Government had recently revoked her appointment.

Mr Rodrigues argued that the impugned appointments with cabinet rank was ''flagrant violation'' of the Constitution of India and that the very purpose of the 91st Amendment of the Constitution which restricts the Cabinet size, was to prevent the installation of jumbo cabinets and the resultant huge drain on the public exchequer.

Such appointments have necessarily to be tested on the touchstone of the 91st amendment, and cannot be used as a back door entry for ministers, he averred.

Relying on the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment of 2005 which had set aside the appointments of Parliamentary Secretaries by the Himachal Pradesh Government, Mr Rodrigues stated that the High Court had termed the Parliamentary Secretaries as usurpers of public office since these appointments did not owe their origin to any constitutional or legal provision.

UNI