R PARTHASARATHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of declaration, declaring that the Presidential Proclamation dated 2. 4. 1992 under Art. 356 of the Constitution of India relating to the State of Nagaland is null and void, unconstitutional and ultra vires. THE petitioner has made available the xerox copy of a news item containing the gist of the Presidential Proclamation. By vir-tue of the Presidential Proclamation issued under art. 356 of the Constitution of India, the Administration of the State of Nagaland was brought under the President's rule. Another xerox copy of a news item made available by the petitioner contains the details of advice which appears to have been tendered to the President of India, who issued the proclamation under Art. 356 in relation to the State of Nagaland ; the sum and substance of it appears to be that the very ground relied upon by the Governor to dissolve the Assembly shows that it was not possible to carry on the administration of the State in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner appeared as party in person and-argued the case by referring to several judgments of the Apex Court as well as various High courts. In substance his contention was that the circumstances which prevailed in the said State at the crucial point of time did not warrant or justify recourse to Art. 356 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the view, I propose to take in disposing of the writ petition, I consider it unnecessary to deal with extensively the various aspects of the submissions made and referred to, in detail, in the several judgments quoted by the petitioner. In my view, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the very simple reason that the petitioner would have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition and that at any rate no part of the cause of action for the writ petition arose at all, either wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.