New Delhi, Nov 18 (IANS): The Supreme Court Monday declined to entertain a batch of PILs challenging the cabinet decision to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh to carve out a new Telangana state.

"We decline to entertain the petition. However, we clarify that the legal questions raised in the petition will be open for argument at an appropriate stage in an appropriate writ petition," an apex court bench of Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice Madan B. Lokur said.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Dattu told a batch of PIL petitioners: "This is only a cabinet decision. This petition is premature. We don't know the mind of state legislature or that of parliament on what they are going to do."

Appearing for one of the petitioners, senior counsel Rohinton Nariman assailed the Oct 3, 2013, union cabinet decision to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh into two states to form Telangana.

He told the court that the basic principle of federalism was not being followed before the proposed bill to bifurcate the state is introduced in parliament.

Under Article 3 of the constitution, Nariman said the views of the state assembly have to be obtained and the views of the state assembly have not been elicited so far. They (government) are violating the principles of federalism and the PIL raises important questions of law relating to the basic structure of the constitution.

Article 3 of the constitution says that parliament may, by law, form a new state by separation of territory from any state, or by uniting two or more states or parts of states, or by uniting any territory to a part of any state.

At this, Justice Dattu said the PIL was premature, as the bill was yet to be introduced. He said all legal issues could be raised once the bill was introuduced.

Senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for another PIL petitioner, said that the petition could not be described as premature because the Group of Ministers to determine the boundaries of the new state has been set up. If the boundaries of the state are going to be determined without hearing the people of Andhra Pradesh, then their rights are affected, so the PIL cannot be said to be premature, the senior counsel told the court.

However, the court reiterated its position that all questions of law could be raised when bill was introduced.

Eight PILs were moved by K. Raghu Ramakrishnan Raju, Payyavula Keshav, K. Krishna Moorthy, D.A. Somayajulu, K. Prabhakar Raju, Anisetty Chandra Mohan, M. Ramakrishna, A.P. State Fish Farmers' Association and others.