U.L. Bhat, C.J. -- 1. After recent elections to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, 5th respondent became the Chief Minister. By virtue of Art. 164 (4) of the Constitution of India, if the 5th respondent does not get elected as Member of the State Legislature within a period of six consecutive months, he shall cease to hold office. It is stated that the 5th respondent's brother who was elected to the Legislative Assembly from Raghogarh constituency, resigned, but on account of an election petition filed by the son of a defeated candidate Ramprasad Shivhare, the Chief Election Commissioner directed that by election would not be held for that constituency. It is alleged that 5th respondent offered inducement to Shri Ramprasad Shivhare to cause the election petition withdrawn, but without success. Second respondent who was elected to the State Legislature from Chachoda constituency, tendered his resignation on 16.3.94 on account of pressure and inducement offered by 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, the resignation was not accepted by the Speaker. It is alleged that the resignation was not voluntary or lawful and there was no acceptance in the eye of law. On these averments, petitioner has sought declaration that the resignation was neither voluntary, nor one within the meaning of ''resignation" as per Art. 190 (3) (b), quashing the declaration made in the Legislative Assembly in regard to the resignation and declaration that the Chachoda Assembly seat is not vacant and the second respondent continues to be the member representing the constituency.

2. Second respondent filed a caveat. He has filed an affidavit and copy of the declaration made by the Speaker and the gazette notification relating to the acceptance of the resignation. Respondents 2 and 3 have sworn to separate affidavits and produced some documents.

3. We have heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and respondents 2, 3 and 5. We find it unnecessary to issue notice to respondents 1 and 4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following contentions in the course of his arguments :

(i) The resignation tendered by second respondent is not "resignation" as contemplated by Art. 190 (3) (b) of the Constitution.

(ii) The resignation does not conform to the requirements of Art. 190 (3) (b) of the Constitution.

(iii) The resignation was not voluntary.

(iv) There was no real acceptance of resignation by the Speaker and the purported acceptance by the Deputy Speaker is invalid.

(v) No enquiry was made by the Speaker in regard to the voluntariness of the resignation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have rebutted the above contentions. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent has also argued on the extent of justifiability of the action of the Speaker.

6. Point No. (i) : Clauses (1) to (3) of Art. 190 of the Constitution read thus:

"190 (1). No person shall be a member of both Houses of the Legislature Of a State and provision shall be made by the Legislature of the State by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one House or the other.

(2). No person shall be a member of the Legislatures of two or more States specified in the First Schedule and if a person is chosen a member of the Legislatures of two or more such States, then at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President, that person's seat in the Legislatures of all such States shall become vacant unless he has, previously resigned his seat in the Legislatures of all but one of the States.

(3). If a member of a House of the Legislature of a State –

(a) become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of article 191; or

(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker or the Chairman as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be) his seat shall thereupon become vacant;

Provided that in the case of