SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(All) 35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. DHAON, S. K. MUKHERJEE
UDAI NARAIN SINHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 9248 Of 1985
Decided On : 01/23/1986

The Governor has the power to dissolve a Legislative Assembly under Article 174 of the Constitution at any time, even if it is not in session.

Headnote:

ELECTION LAW - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 15 - NOTIFICATION FOR GENERAL ELECTION - VALIDITY - GOVERNOR'S POWER TO DISSOLVE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - ARTICLES 172 AND 174 OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION - FICTION CREATED IN SECTION 73 OF THE ACT - PURPOSE AND SCOPE - DISSOLUTION OF EIGHTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - VALIDITY - NINTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - EXISTENCE AND DISSOLUTION.

Fact of the Case:

A petition was filed challenging the existence of the Ninth Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh, alleging that the Governor fraudulently dissolved the Eighth Assembly before its term expired and that the Ninth Assembly was never properly constituted.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Governor's notification calling for a general election was valid, as it was issued within six months of the expiration of the Eighth Assembly's term. The Court also held that the Governor had the power to dissolve the Eighth Assembly under Article 174 of the Constitution, even though it was not in session at the time. The Court further held that the Ninth Assembly never came into existence, as no date had been appointed for its first meeting, and therefore, the Governor could not have dissolved it.

Issues: 1. Whether the Governor's notification calling for a general election was valid. 2. Whether the Governor had the power to dissolve the Eighth Assembly under Article 174 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the Ninth Assembly ever came into existence.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Governor's notification calling for a general election was valid, as it was issued within six months of the expiration of the Eighth Assembly's term, in accordance with Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. The Court held that the Governor had the power to dissolve the Eighth Assembly under Article 174 of the Constitution, even though it was not in session at the time. The Court interpreted Article 174(2) to mean that the Governor may dissolve the Legislative Assembly at any time. 3. The Court held that the Ninth Assembly never came into existence, as no date had been appointed for its first meeting, in accordance with Article 172(1) of the Constitution. The Court interpreted the fiction created in Section 73 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to mean that the Assembly is deemed to be duly constituted only for the purpose of paving the way for the appointment of a date for its first meeting.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Governor's dissolution of the Eighth Assembly was valid and that the Ninth Assembly never came into existence.

S. K. DHAON, J.


( 1 ) AN elector, who appears in Person, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to challenge the existence of the current Legislative Assembly - the Ninth Legislative Assembly.

( 2 ) THE term of the Eighth Legislative Assembly was to expire on 27th June, 1985. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh, in the purported exercise of powers under S. 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued a notification on 30th Jan. 1985, calling upon all the Assembly constituencies in the State to elect members in accordance with the revisions of the Act, the Rules and the orders made thereunder. The Election Commission on 10th Mar. , 1985, issued a notification purporting to be under S. 73 of the Act notifying the names of the members elected in the various constituencies barring a few constituencies where elections could not be held for one reason or the other. On the same date, the Governor, in the purported exercise of powers under cl. (b) of Art. 174 (2) of the Constitution, issued a notification dissolving the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly with effect from that date. A notification issued on the same day announced that the Governor accepted the resignation of Sri Narain Dutt Tewari, the then Chief Minister, and the members of his cabinet with effect from the afternoon of the said day, and directed that the Chief Minister should continue to function along with his cabinet till a new cabinet was constituted. On 11th Mar. 1985, a notification was issued to the effect that the Governor appointed Sri Narain Dutt Tewari as the Chief Minister.

( 3 ) THE provisions of Section 15 of the Act are in pari materia with those contained in S. 14. In Anand Mohan v. Union of India, AIR 1985 All 114 we had the occasion of considering the question whether a general election could be held for constituting a new House of the People even before the expiration of duration of the existing House. We took the view that the parliamentary constituencies in the country could be called upon to elect members of the House of the People in advance, at any time within six months from the date of expiration of the duration of the existing house but not before six months. We have already indicated that the Eighth Legislative Assembly had its life till 27th June, 1985. The notification dt. 30th Jan. , 1985, having been issued well within six months was perfectly valid.

( 4 ) THE petitioner made yet another attack on the validity of the notification dt. 30th Jan. , 1985, on the ground that the Governor, in substance, played a fraud upon the electors of the State as eventually the life of the Eighth Legislative Assembly was cut short by an action taken under Art. 174 of the Constitution. As this contention is based upon an interpretation of the preamble to the notification dated 30th Jan. , 1985, it will be appropriate to extract the same :-whereas it has been decided to hold a general election in the State of Uttar Pradesh for the purpose of constituting a new Legislative Assembly on the expiration of the duration of the existing Legislative Assembly" (underlined by us)emphasis has been laid by the petitioner upon the words underlined by us. The petitioner assumes that the duration of an existing Legislative Assembly can expire only on the completion of its full term of five years and not by its dissolution. In Anand Mohans case (supra) we considered Art. 83 (2) and cl. (b) of Art. 85 (2) of the Constitution and held that the framers of the Constitution contemplated the dissolution of the House of the People by two methods, one by the action of the President and the other by the natural effluxion of time. This scheme is maintained in relation to the Legislative Assemblies. In Art. 172 it is provided that every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and the expiration of the said p












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top