Veerastuami, C.J.-By a notification dated 14th November, 1972, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Art. 174 (2) (a) of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu Mr. K. K. Shah, prorogued the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly with effect from the forenoon of 15th November, 1972. Mr. K.A. Mathiazhagan, the Speaker of the Assembly has filed writ Petition No. 2968 of 1972 under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari, or order or direction in the nature of a writ to call for the records of the respondent, who is the Governor of Tamil Nadu, relating to G.O. Ms. No. 128 Legislative Assembly Department, dated 14th November, 1972 and quash the same, and also pass such further or other order as this Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case. Mr. M. G. Ramachandran, Leader of the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and a Member of the Assembly, has filed writ Petition No. 2969 of 1972 with a similar prayer. writ Petition No. 3010 of 1972 filed by Mr. K. T. K. Thangamani, also a Member of the Legislature, is with a like prayer. According to the Speaker, the circumstances leading to the petitions are these . The Speaker convened a meeting of the Assembly to be held on and from 13th November, 1972. when the Assembly commenced, Mr. K. T. K. Thangamani wanted the Chief Minister to make a statement on Cabinet changes since the House had last met and the reasons therefor. The Speaker ruled that it was open to the Chief Minister to make necessary changes according to administrative exigencies, and so he could not be compelled to give his reasons. There was a motion for removal of the Speaker, the subject of which was raised, and a few members expressed their views. The Speaker brought to the notice of the House the legal position regarding requirement of 14 days clear notice of such a motion and ruled that the motion could be taken up for consideration only the next day. He stated that “to protect and preserve Democracy” he would like to take up the ‘no-confidence’ motion straightaway on the 14th and asked the Leader of the House if it would be alright. But the Chief Minister said that a date could be fixed later in consultation with the Members. The Speaker, however, rejected the suggestion and held that the motion would be taken up for consideration on the next day. Mr. M. G. Ramachandran then raised a point of order and said that the Ministry had lost the confidence of the majority of the members in the party and the people, and questioned the propriety of the Government continuing in Office. Mr. Thangamani also voiced a similar sentiment. The Chief Minister said that the House could straightaway discuss the no-confidence motion against the Government. The Speaker then explained that an extraordinary situation had arisen in the State and it was advisable to seek a fresh mandate from the people. There was some further discussion and the Chief Minister said that he would go to the polls in 1976. Some members suggested that the Chief Minister should have some time to think over the suggestion. The Speaker felt that this was quite proper, especially as the Chief Minister did not give a reply whether he was prepared for reelection even then. He, therefore, adjourned the House till 5th December, 1972, in order to enable the Government to consider the suggestion made regarding their seeking a fresh mandate from the people. while that was the position, the Governor had issued the impugned notification. It was significant that so far no Ordinance had been issued on any matter of importance, nor had the Assembly been re-convened to any specific date anterior to 5th December, 1972, to which date the House stood adjourned. The Speaker, therefore, submits that the order of the Governor is contrary to the letter as well as the spirit of the law and the Constitution, and says that he has no remedy except to seek the aid of this Court under Article 226. The Speaker proceeds to say in his affidavit in su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document