New Delhi, July 29 -- The Kerala government on Monday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the presidential reference that has sought clarification on timelines set for the President and the Governor to act on bills presented for their consent, alleging the reference seeks to mislead the court into setting aside its own judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. In an application moved a day before the hearing in the pending reference proceedings on Tuesday, the Kerala government pointed out that the apex court's April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the presidential reference in May. The state alleged that the presidential reference has "supressed" this material fact. The Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu v Governor case set the timelines for the Governor and President to act on the bills presented for their consent within three months. Pointing out that the Centre has not filed a review petition against the April 8 verdict, establishing it as a settled law, the Kerala government argued that if the Union government wanted to challenge the top court judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative plea in the Supreme Court, and not take the route of presidential reference. The presidential reference cannot "obliquely" challenge a ruling of the court, which amounts to "serious misuse" of Article 143 under which reference has been sought, the state argued. Noting that the presidential reference makes no reference to the April 8 judgment, the application said: "The reference loses its legitimacy and seeks to mislead the court into setting aside its own judgment, the existence of which, as mentioned, has been suppressed. The reference therefore deserves to be returned unanswered." The application, filed through advocate CK Sasi, said the President can only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the top court. "The instant reference is being used as a device to obtain decisions on these vital issues, without disclosing and by suppressing the final findings already rendered on these issues by this Hon'ble Court, and to get this Hon'ble Court to deliver inconsistent judgments on the issue of timeframe under Article 200, which is not res integra (an untouched matter)," it added. Article 200 makes the governor's assent mandatory for clearing the bills passed by the state legislature. The first proviso to Article 200 states that the governor may "as soon as possible after the presentation" of the bill for assent, return the bill if it is not a money bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the state legislature. The April 8 verdict, passed on a petition by Tamil Nadu challenging withholding of consent on 10 crucial bills, termed the governor's withholding of sanction "illegal". The court exercising its extraordinary power under Article 142 declared "deemed" assent to the bills....