( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Con-stitution has been filed by Dr. A. J. Faridi, who was a Member of the U. P. Legislative Council. The three opposite parties in the petitions are Sri raghunath Vinayak Dhulekar, Chairman, U. P. Legislative Council, the Secretary of the U. P. Legislative Council and the U. P. Legislative Council itself.

( 2 ) ON nth February, 1960, Dr. Faridi and eight other members of the Council gave notice of the following resolution :

"sri Raghunath Vinayak Dhulekar, being unfit for the office of the Chairman of the Council, should be removed from the office"

under Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Council. Under this rule a resolution for the removal of the Chairman can be moved only if the leave of the House is given for the purpose by 20 members of the House rising in support of the same when so required by the Chairman to do. The question relating to the leave was included as item No. 3 in the agenda for and March, 1960.

( 3 ) ON 2nd March, 1960, Sri Raghunath Vinayak Dhulekar (to be referred to hereafter as Sri dhulekar), the Chairman of the Council, was occupying the chair. After the first two items of the agenda were gone through, he put the question relating to, the leave for the aforesaid resolution to the house, and asked such of the members as were in favour of leave being granted rising in their seats; and on only 18 members rising, he announced that the leave had been refused. Dr. Faridi and others protested against Sri Dhulekar himself occupying the chair when this matter was put to the House, and later walked out. but we are not concerned in this petition with what happened after the Chairman had announced the decision of the House.

( 4 ) DR. Faridi has prayed in this petition for a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus against the opposite-parties to the effect that the proceedings relating to item No. 3 in the agenda for 2nd March, 1960, be treated as ultra vires the Constitution and not effective and further ordering the Chairman to proceed according to the provisions of Articles 183 and 185 of the constitution without applying Rule 143 aforesaid on the ground that it was ultra vires and illegal.

( 5 ) WHAT is urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the law relating to the moving of a resolution for the removal of the Chairman is that which is contained in Article 183 of the Constitution, and that that article prescribes only two limitations in respect of it, namely,

(1) that at least 14 days notice of the intention to move such a resolution has been given, and (2) that the resolution is passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council.

( 6 ) IT is urged that these are the only two conditions governing a resolution for the removal of a chairman and that Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business (to be referred to hereafter as the Rules) having prescribed a further condition that leave of the House should be asked for and that that leave should be available only if at least 20 members rise in support of the same, being inconsistent with Article 183, is ultra vires the Constitution.

( 7 ) IT was contended that Article 194 (3) of the Constitution prescribes the powers, privileges and immunities of a House of the Legislature of a State and its members as being, unless they ara defined by the Legislature itself by law, to be the same as were enjoyed by the House of commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and its members at the commencement of the Constitution. One of the powers and privileges of a member of the House of Commons, it was urged, is to move any resolution in the House including a resolution for the removal of the speaker or Chairman and to speak for and in support of the same and that it is this power and privilege of the petitioner, which was denied by Rule 143, which is ultra vires the Constitution even on that ac count.

( 8 ) IT was further contended that under Article 1