SUDERSHAN GOEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent nos. 5 and 6 may be deleted from the array of respondents. Accordingly, respondents 5 and 6 are deleted from the array of respondents. -

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction restraining the Caretaker Central Government from recommending the imposition of President's Rule in the State of Bihar and there is a further prayer made by the petitioner restraining the Chief Election Commissioner from postponing the election process set in motion in the entire State of Bihar.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the situation is too imminent that any moment there will be imposition of President's Rule on the advice of the present Caretaker Central Government. He took us through the historical background in which the present Caretaker Government came into existence and submitted that the exercise of such a power or authority by the Caretaker Government would be a mala fide exercise of power for extraneous and political reasons and as a matter of fact, the situation as obtaining in the State of Bihar does not at all warrant imposition of President's Rule. The learned counsel submitted that the Presidential satisfaction is justiciable after the Fortyfourth Amendment, whereby clause (5) was deleted. He referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India and another, AIR 1982 SC 710, where their Lordships observed in paras 27 :