A writ petition must be filed by a person who has locus standi, should not suffer from misjoinder of causes of action, and should be free from unparliamentary language.

1. - Petitioner Nand Lal Sharma presented this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India.

2. It has been contended by him that keeping in view the provisions of Articles 1 95, 106, 102 and 191 the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a pious object of establishing real supremacy of the Constitution.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and Members Emoluments) Act, 1956 (Act No. 6 of 1957), as amended from time to time is liable to be struck down on the following grounds:-

1. That the pension which is being paid to the Ex-Members of the Legislative Assembly is violative of Article 195 of the Constitution of India.

2. That the salary, allowances and other privileges given to the Chief Whip, Deputy Whip and the Leader of Opposition are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India.

3. That the Members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, as shown in Annexure 6, have been appointed on offices of profit in violation of Article 19 1 of the Constitution of India.

4. It was also contended that in violation of Articles 47,48, 37 and 39 of the Constitution of India the policy which has been laid down for development of agriculture, desert land, parks and industries, is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India.

5. That the State Government is not enacting proper laws as envisaged under Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner in support of his contentions has advanced a series of arguments. A notice to show cause was issued to the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India. Along with the writ petition certain annexures have been produced by the petitioner. Annexure I deals with the brief history of Indian agriculture. Annexure 2 deals with the scientific survey in the Indian Desert. Annexure 3 deals with the various problems in various States. Annexure 4 deals with the problems relating to industries. Annexure 5 is the statement of Kanhaiyalal Soni in the Court of SDM, Jaipur dated 24-4-198. Annexure 6 is the list of 42 MLAs who have been appointed on certain posts. The conten- tion of the petitioner is that these are offices of profit and the State Government could not have appointed sitting MLAs on these posts.

4. On behalf of the State preliminary objections have been raised. It has been contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition as no statutory legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner has been affected. PF It was further contended that the petition seriously suffers from misjoinder of different causes of actions and in one single writ petition the petitioner has challenged various provisions of law without raising specific issue in the writ petition. It was also contended that though a challenge has been thrown about the illegality of the pension being paid to the Ex-MLAs and Ex-Members of Parliament, but they have not been impleaded and no order can be passed against them behind their back. It was also contended that similarly 42 MLAs mentioned in Annexure 6 have not been impleaded by the petitioner to this writ petition. It was further contended that the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip and the leader of Opposition have also not been made parties to the writ petition.

5. It was further contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as unparliamentary and highly objectionable allegations have been made without any basis whatsoever against responsible persons. It was also contended that presentation of the writ petition in the present form is against the rules framed by the High Court relating to the presentation of the writ petition. It was also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs which he has claimed through this writ petition.

6. Reply to the writ petition has also been filed by the Union of India. It has been contended by the Union of India that the payment of pensio