New Delhi, Jun 21 (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday refused to extend its order restraining the Puducherry government from implementing any cabinet decisions having financial implications and asked the Centre to move the Madras High Court with its plea on alleged power tussle between the chief minister and the Lt Governor.
The apex court, on June 4, had directed that "any decision in the Cabinet meeting to be convened on July 7 having financial implication/implications or with respect to any transfer of the lands shall not be implemented".
A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose did not allow the plea of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the issue of alleged tussle over power between Lt Governor and the chief minister was important and required a judicial decision in the light of the five-judge Constitution bench verdict in the Delhi-Centre power row matter.
"We are not inclined to entertain this case. It would be open to the petitioner (Centre) to challenge the order of the single judge bench order (of the HC) in the division bench," the bench said.
The Puducherry government had earlier told the apex court that it has taken three cabinet decisions -- distribution of free rice to all ration card holders in the Union Territory, renaming a department and auctioning of a sick factory.
Out of these three decisions taken, free distribution of rice to all ration card holders can be allowed as the scheme has been running for the last ten years, it had said.
The counsel for Lieutenant Governor Kiran Bedi had said that the scheme cannot be allowed as it will be a modification of an earlier order and has a huge financial implication.
The top court had on June 4 directed the Puducherry government, led by Chief Minister V Narayanasamy who is at loggerheads with Bedi, not to implement any decision having financial implications, that may be taken at the Cabinet meeting of in the June 7.
The application filed by the Centre and Bedi had sought a direction for restoring the situation prevailing before the April 30 Madras High Court verdict which held that the LG "cannot interfere" in the day-to-day affairs of the elected government in the Union Territory.
On May 10, the apex court had sought response from Congress MLA K Laksminarayanan, on whose petition the high court had delivered the April 30 verdict, on the pleas filed by the Centre and Bedi.
On April 30, the Madras High Court had allowed a plea filed by Laksminarayanan and set aside the two communications issued in January and June 2017 by the Ministry of Home Affairs "elevating" the powers of the administrator.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgement on the tussle between Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lt Governor Anil Baijal, the high court had said that restrictions imposed on Delhi government are not applicable to the Puducherry government.
"The administrator cannot interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the government. The decision taken by the Council of Ministers and the chief minister is binding on secretaries and other officials," it had said.
Laksminarayanan had claimed in his plea before the high court that the administrator was interfering in the day-to-day administration of the territorial government, its policies and programmes.
