JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.K. Pal for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This proceeding has been initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking two fold reliefs, (i) A direction has been sought in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to stay the operation of the impugned notification dated 07.07.2022 by which the recognition of the petitioner as the leader of the opposition in Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council has been withdrawn; and (ii) A direction has also been sought in the nature of Certiorari, seeking quashing of the said impugned notification dated 07.07.2022 by which the recognition of the petitioner as the leader of the opposition in Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council has been withdrawn.

FACTS

3. Article 168 of the constitution of India provides for a Legislature in every state of the country. The same article mentions that where there are two Houses of the Legislature of a State, one shall be known as the Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad in Hindi) and the other as the Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha in Hindi), popularly known as the upper house and lower house respectively. While all the states of India and even some union territory have Legislative Assembly, however the presence of Legislative Council is restricted to only few larger states, including the state of Uttar Pradesh. As of now, there are six states which have legislative council namely the state of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana and the State of Uttar Pradesh.

4. This court is concerned with the legislative Council/ Vidhan Parishad/ Upper house of the state of Uttar Pradesh which is a permanent House, consisting of 100 Members, (90 elected + 10 nominated). (Annexure-2 of the writ) and the issue relating to the validity of the impugned notification dated 07.07.2022 by which the recognition of the petitioner as the leader of the opposition in Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council has been withdrawn.

5. The petitioner Lal Bihari Yadav is an elected member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council since 2020 (Annexure-3 of the writ) and also a candidate of the political party, the Samajwadi party. The petitioner was recognized as a leader of the opposition in the Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) under section 2(h) of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members, Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980 vide a letter dated 27.05.2022 (Annexure-4 of the Writ) issued by the Principal Secretary, Vidhan Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. Apparently, no reason or any criteria have been mentioned in the said letter relating to the appointment of the petitioner as the “Leader of the Opposition” and the only reference made in the said letter is that the petitioner is being appointed as “Leader of Opposition” in terms of section 2(h) of the Act, mentioned supra.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that as on 05.07.2022, the number of members of Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh Vidhan parishad was 12 (Twelve) and it was decreased on 06.07.2022/07.07.2022 to 9 (Nine) and as such the petitioner’s recognition as leader of opposition was withdrawn, which according to the petitioner was illegal, unconstitutional and in an arbitrary manner, without affording any opportunity of hearing. Thus, the petitioner has approached this court under the present writ petition.

CONTENTIONS

7. Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri K.K. Pal for the petitioner, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner while explaining the definition of “Leader of Opposition” as found in section 2(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council, 1980, sought to draw pari-materia reference to the meaning of a leader of opposition in the houses of Indian Parliament. According to him, the leader of opposition is a statutory post and is defined in the salaries and allowances of leaders of opposition in parliament Act, 19