H SIDDAVEERAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five members of the Legistive Assembly and one member of the Legislative Council of the Mysore Legislative pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the notices and programmes issued to the members of the Assembly and the Council intimating that the two Houses will meet on the 15th of March 1971 and requesting them to attend the same, a writ of prohibition directing the respondents to forbear from commencing the business so intimated and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to summon a joint session of the Legislative Assembly and Council in accordance with the provisions of Art.176 of the Constitution and to prepare programmes in accordance with the rules of procedure and conduct of business in the Mysore Legislative Assembly

(2.) As the business programmed for the meeting includes consideration of the Annual Budget for the year 1971-72 and the relative appropriation bills and the contentions raised are ;n relation to a meeting of the Legislature called to consider such important matters, after hearing Mr. R.M.Patil for the Petitioners for some time we requested the Advocate-General who was in Court watching the proceedings, to take notice on behalf of the respondents and assist us Hence we have heard both Mr. Patil for the petitioners and the Advocate-General for the respondents.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the petitioners briefly is that the meeting of the Legislature called by the impugned communications or notices is the first Session of the Mysore Legislature for the current year 1971, that therefore it directly attracts the provisions of Art.176 of the Constitution, that the notices as well as the provisional programme issued to the members of the Legislature do not contain any indication that the provisions of the said Article would be complied with, that thp proceedings of the Legislature without complying with the said article would be totally illegal and that, therefore, it is necessary in public interest to issue the writs as prayed for. It is further stated in the course of the arguments that there is no indication in the notices that there had been an order by the Governor under Art.174 summoning the Legislature. Mr. Patil also urged that there is no bar or prohibition against the issue of such writs by this Court either in Art.212 of the Constitution or in any other provision of the Constitution.