B N BAJPAI Vs. RAMDAYAL UIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a practising advocate inter alia alleging that he being interested in the Constitution of India and the happenings of social and political events in the State of Chhattisgarh is entitled to file this pro-bono-publico.

(2.) The petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1, elected M.L.A. of the legislative constituency, Marwahi, District Bilaspur, had resigned between last week of December, 2000 and first week of January, 2001 from his office. The respondent No. 2 had accepted the resignation tendered by the respondent No. 1 in a servile manner without taking the attending circumstances, intent and object of the Constitution, while the respondent No. 2 was obliged to take into consideration the attending circumstances which persuaded the respondent No. 1 to tender his resignation, the intention behind tendering the resignation and the object behind constitutional provisions. It is further submitted that in the normal course of business, the respondent No. 3, the Election Commission, after receipt of the information from the respondent No. 2 about the vacancy of the scat earlier occupied by the respondent No. 1, declared election. The petitioner submits that the Election Commission has declared the programme for election. The petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 during the course of his election campaign, before his election from Marwahi constituency, must not have made a promise to his electors that on one fine morning he would tender his resignation from the office of MLA and as such it is legitimate to presume that he must have assured his electors that he would work for them. According to the petitioner, acceptance of the resignation of the respondent No. 1 would burden the public exchequer of additional expenses on by-election.

(3.) The petitioner submits that from the object and the scheme of the Constitution of India, it would clearly appear that the framers of the Constitution must never have anticipated that an elected M.L.A. just for nothing out of his whim-caprice and arbitrariness, would resign from the office thereby playing fraud with the electors and burden the public exchequer of unnecessary additional expenses for by-election. The petition further says that the submission of the resignation by respondent No. 1 and its acceptance by respondent No. 2 is a result of erroneous interpretation of Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the word 'or' has been inadvertently used between clause (a) and clause (b) of Article 190(3); while in fact the said word 'or' must be read as 'and'. The petition says that the Constitutional Provisions and intent of the Constitution clearly shows that the word 'or' is required to be read as 'and'.