The unexpired portion of a sentence for contempt of the House of Commons lapses with the end of the session during which the detention order was made.

R. N. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE 8 petitioners styling themselves as members of the Samajwadi Yubak sabha (Utkal) applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus when they were detained in custody in the Bhubaneswar sub-jail under a warrant issued by the Speaker of the Orissa Legislative Assembly.

( 2 ) THE Orissa Legislative Assembly was in session when the petitioners got into the legislative assembly hall and submitted to the Speaker and the members of the assembly a printed letter alleging several acts of misconduct, maladministration, corruption and high-handed acts of excesses through utilisation of police force for suppressing civil liberties. The petitioners shouted slogans and disturbed the proceedings. They were taken into custody and ultimately they were sentenced to 7 days' simple imprisonment. Under a warrant issued by the Speaker, they were lodged to custody with opposite party No. 2. The warrant was to the following effect: "whereas the Orissa Legislative Assembly has decided at its meeting held on the 8th October, 1969, that the follow-ing named persons be sentenced to simple imprisonment till the 15th October, 1969 for committing the offence of the contempt of the Orissa Legislative assembly, it is accordingly ordered that the persons named below be detained in the Bhubaneswar Jail till the 15th October. 1969. Sri Susant Kumar Chand, sri Brajakishore Tripathi, Sri Purna Chandra Sahu, sri Susant Kumar Mohanty, sri Hrushikesh Chain. Sri Girija Prasad Misra. Sri Naren Sinha. Sri Subodh Kumar Mohanty * * * * * the writ application was presented in this Court on 10-10-1969 and the petitioners were asked to be released on bail. The application was admitted for hearing, but prayer for bail was rejected.

( 3 ) THE sentence of 7 days' imprisonment has been suffered by the petitioners and they have been released. The petition for habeas corpus has thus become infructuous. Normally such a petition should have been dismissed as not maintainable on that score. Mr. Murty, However, raised an interesting question and wanted us to resolve the dispute. According to him when the application was admitted for hearing but bail was refused, it was known that long before hearing of the petition, the petitioners would be out of jail having served sentence. Accordingly, Mr. Murty contends that the writ petition was pursued until now only to obtain a judgment from this Court on the point raised by him.

( 4 ) MR. Murty does not dispute the power of the Orissa Legislative Assembly to take cognizance of its contempt and even to award sentence of imprisonment, as has been done in this case. On the authority of the decision by their Lordships of the supreme Court in the case of In re Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, air 1965 SC 745. Mr. Murty also agrees that this Court has no jurisdiction to question the correctness of the sentence of imprisonment and the warrant in question. He, however contends that the petitioners were entitled to be released when the Orissa Legislative Assembly was prorogued on 13-10-1969. There is no dispute that the Orissa Legislative Assembly was prorogued as contemplated under Article 174 (2) (a) of the Constitution on 13th of October. 1969. According to Mr. Murty the detention of the petitioners should have come to an end with the adjournment of the house on 13-10-1969 and they should not have been detained until 15-10-1969. In support of his contention he contends that under Article 194 (3) of the Constitution, the privileges of a house of legislature of a State are those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as at the commencement of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that the powers and privileges of the house of the Orissa Legislative Assembly has not vet been defined by the legislators by law. It is Mr. Murty's contention that in the United kingdom it is long settled that even if there has been an order of detention for contem