B. J. DIVAN, P. N. BHAGWATI, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition raises issues of great constitutional importance. Though various reliefs are claimed in the petition the main question which arises for consideration in the petition is whether a certain Resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Gujarat State by a majority of members present and voting for adjournment of the Assembly sine die is void as being outside the power of the Assembly. The facts giving rise to the petition are few and undisputed and they may be gathered from the transcript of the proceedings of the House produced before us by the Assembly at the time of the admission of the petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are Members of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly belonging to the opposition. The present ruling party in the Assembly is Congress (Organisation ). The Assembly was summoned by the Governor to meet on 18th February 1970 in exercise of his power under Article 174 of the Constitution and according to the schedule fixed by the Speaker the Assembly Session was to continue upto 8th April 1970. The Government business was first taken up by the Assembly and it occupied the time of the House from 18th February 1970 to 28th March 1970. No private members business was transacted in the Assembly upto that date since the days allotted by the Speaker for private members business were all after 28th March 1970. On 27th March 1970 there was a meeting of the Business advisory Committee which is a Committee constituted by the Speaker under Rule 190 of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules made under Article 208 (1) of the Constitution. This meeting was convened at the instance of the Minister for Parliamentary Affair and it was presided over by the Speaker. At this meeting a proposal was made that the Business Advisory Committee should recommend to the Assembly that the House be adjourned sine die after completing the business on 28th March 1970. The third petitioner who is a member of the Business Advisory Committee and who was present at this meeting opposed the proposal and in protest against it the third petitioner and other Members of the Business Advisory Committee who belonged to the Opposition walked out of the meeting. The Business Advisory Committee thereafter passed the following Resolution on the same day namely 27th March 1970;that the House be adjourned sine die on 28th March 1970 after the business of the House is over and that the pending business for the session be carried forward when the House reassembles. on 28th March 1970 a Resolution was moved in the Assembly by the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs that the House agrees with the above recommendation made by the Business Advisory Committee. When this Resolution was moved a point of order was raised by petitioner No. 4. It was based on a three-fold objection. The first objection was that by virtue of Rule 9 of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules the Speaker alone had the power to adjourn the House sine die and such power did not belong to the Assembly. Secondly it was urged that the recommendation placed before the House for acceptance was not within the scope and ambit of the powers of the Business Advisory Committee. And lastly it was said that if the Resolution was accepted it would violate the constitutional right of the members of the Assembly presumably the right of freedom of speech given under Article 194 (1) of the Constitution. All these objections were negatived by the Speaker and the point of order raised by petitioner No. 4 was over-ruled by him. There was an amendment to the Resolution proposed by Mr. H. M. Patel another member belonging tow the Opposition to the effect that the Resolution be referred back to the Business Advisory Committee and the amendment was therefore first put to vote. The amendment was rejected by a majority of the House. The Resolution was then put to vote and here we may reproduce from the transcript of the proceedings what happened. The Speaker said:- The que

Click Here to Read the rest of this document