S RAGHAVANANDAM Vs. C P CHITRARASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council is seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the notification dated 27-1-1971 issued by the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Legislative Council (the first respondent) on the main ground that he has not ceased to be a member of the Upper House, and the notification as such should be deemed to be inoperative in the eye of law. The facts on which the writ petition was based could be summarised as follows.

(2.) ON the dissolution of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly consequent on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the petitioner had information that some of the members of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, to which the petitioner belonged, and who were members of Parliament, desired to stand for the State Legislative assembly and vice versa. For this purpose, the party officials were gathering such information as was necessary as to who all were so desirous necessary as to who all were so desirous of standing as members to the State Legislative Assembly, instead of seeking a ticket to the Lok Sabha. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council in April, 1968, and his term would normally expire in April, 1974. In view of the expectancy as above of some members of Parliament to stand for being elected as members of the Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly, the petitioner became inquisitive as to whether he could not seek a seat in the Lok Sabha himself. For this purpose, he gave an application on the 8th representative of the D. M. K. Party, who stating that he desired to have a ticket to enable him to stand for the Lok Sabha from the Sivaganga Parliamentary constituency. On the same date, it appears, the party's attitude was made clear in the matter of such personnel like the petitioner, who were either sitting members of the State Council or the Rajya Sabha and who were desirous of applying for a ticket to contest for the Lok Sabha or the State Assembly as the case may be, that they should submit their resignation of the offices which they held as above to enable the party to consider their fitness for being nominated to the Lok Sabha as the party's candidate. This announcement was made is the Murasoli, which apparently is a party organ. On the 24th January, 1971, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a list of names who were allotted tickets to contest the elections for seats in the Lok Sabha was given out, and, in fact, it is not in dispute that the names were publicised in the local dailies as well. In spite of it, it transpires that on the 25th January, 1971, the petitioner, not having lost hope of securing a seat to contest for the Lok Sabha, followed up the objective of the party as publicity announced in the Murasoli and is said to have written a letter, which is marked as Ex. A, and which reads as under:

(3.) AS already stated, the petitioner's case is that about 8-45 p. m. on 25-1-1971, an undated letter of resignation, which reflected the contents as excepted above, excepting the date and the endorsement made by the first respondent, was handed over by him to the third respondent, who in turn paused it on to the second respondent, and presumably the letter ultimately reached the first respondent who acted upon it and issued the challenged notification. The petitioner had to leave Madras on the night of 25th January, 1971, and he was surprised to read in the morning editions of Daily Thanthi and Navamani of date 26th January, 1971, that the petitioner's resignation as member of the Tamil Nadu legislative Council was accepted by the Chairman of the Council as required under the provisions of the Constitution and that a vacancy has arisen in the Council in that behalf. The petitioner immediately gave telegram to the first respondent running as under: "learn from dailies, that you have accepted my resignation of Council membership. I never intended to submit my resignation letter to you. Surprised to see such news. Submit I have (not) resigned my Council membership. Raghavanandam, member, Legislative Council. " the further case of the petitioner is that he contacted the Secretary of the legislative council on the 27th instant, who is stated to have informed him that the resignation had been accepted and that a notification was under issue in consequence thereof. It is not in dispute that a notification to the above effect was issued on 27-1-1971 and was received by the petitioner on 28-1-1971. After coming to know the action taken by the first respondent about the letter of resignation as above, the petitioner was thoroughly dissatisfied about the way in which his letter was dealt with by the respondents 2 and 3, to whom, according to him, the letter was handed over. In the meantime, he received a letter from the fifth respondent, running as under: