MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a public interest litigation filed by dr. Keshava Rao, a Senior Congress Party leader, who has held many elective posts both in the Government of Andhra Pradesh and in the Congress Party. He is also associated with several non-governmental organizations, trade unions, and is a human rights activist besides a member of teaching faculty in Osmania University.

( 2 ) PETITIONER brings to the notice of the court about mal-administration prevailing in the State of Andhra pradesh and believes president Rule could have been imposed in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as according to the petitioner, there is breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State of A. P. and as such action under Article 356 of the constitution of India should have been initiated by the President of India. Petitioner in his endeavor to get President s Rule imposed in the State of Andhra Pradesh, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the Union of India, the 1st respondent herein, to act and invoke powers under article 356 of the Constitution of India and take appropriate steps under the constitutional provisions thereby discharge its constitutional duty in the circumstances detailed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and seeks to pass such other order as is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

( 3 ) THE gist of allegations made in the writ petition in support of the plea of the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the 1st respondent-Union of India is dissolution of state Assembly by the Governor on the advice of the State Cabinet on 14-11 -2003, on the basis of a resolution passed by the state Cabinet. It is mainly stated that the cabinet took into consideration activities of the extremists, which are adversely affecting the investments into the State and negating the efforts of the Government of create opportunities for employment and a better life to the people and also the recent attack on the Chief Minister by the Naxalites reflects sense of growing desperation among the extremists and losing their ideological fig leaf of social and economic exploitation. Petitioner stated that in the resolution it was further alleged that the opposition party on their part has been playing an extremely opportunistic role by failing to take a clear stand on the issue of extremism and that in view of the grave threat posed to the development of the State by extremism, the Council of Ministers resolved to recommend the Governor of andhra Pradesh to dissolve the Legislative assembly in order to seek fresh mandate from the people.

( 4 ) LAYING emphasis on the said resolution, petitioner averred that the cabinet resolution itself is an admission of fact that the State is house-holding to extremists violence. Petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court several killings of innocent citizens by naxalites from 1996 onwards till November, 2003 as per the report of Human Rights Committee and the police action against the activities of naxals and shooting them down in the name of encounters and thus there is failure of administration in the State of Andhra pradesh. It is also stated on the basis of events narrated in the resolution that there is a serious threat to the State development resulting breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State, believes imposition of President s Rule under Article 356 of the constitution of India is the only solution. Petitioner further stated that when the cabinet resolves to get the Assembly dissolved much earlier to completion of five years term on the basis of the instances indicated in the resolution, the Governor of andhra Pradesh dissolved the Assembly, but could not have permitted the Council of ministers to continue till elections are held, which according to the petitioner is improper. Petitioner also stated that the 1st respondent-Union of India is though awa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document