D SRINIVASAN Vs. GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a tax payer and he has filed this writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification in S.O. Ms. No. 2 Legislative Assembly Secretariat dt. 15th Nov. 1984, ordering, under Art.174(2)(b) of the Constitution, the dissolution of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary of the same date. He has also filed two interlocutory petitions, one W.M.P. 18175 of 1984 for staying all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notification and the other W.M.P. 18176 of 1984 for an interim injunction restraining the respondents 3 and 4, the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer respectively from conducting elections to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, pending disposal of the writ petition.

(2.) The validity of the notification has been questioned by the petitioner on the following three grounds- (1) There is no properly constituted Council of Ministers, since the requirements of Art.163 of the Constitution are not satisfied. (2) Since there is no Chief Minister who alone can communicate the decision of the Council of Ministers to the Governor as contemplated under Art.167, the issuance of the notification by the Governor dissolving the Assembly without such a communication is violative of the said Article. (3) Since the Chief Minister is not a party to the decision to dissolve the Assembly, the action of the Governor is ultra vires the Constitution and the question of dissolution of the Assembly can only be decided by the Chief Minister and by none else.

(3.) Before proceeding to consider as to how far the above contentions are tenable, it is necessary to set out the circumstances under which the dissolution of the Assembly came to be ordered by the Governor of Tamil Nadu the first respondent herein, under the impugned notification. Mr. M. G. Ramachandran, The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu fell ill and he was admitted into the Appollo Hospital, Madras, for treatment on 5-10-1984. Since then he is under medical treatment. In view of his continued medical treatment in the hospital, he was not in a position to personally discharge his functions as Chief Minister. Therefore, he is said to have orally delegated his duties to the Finance Minister, Mr. V. R. Nedunchezhian. Taking note of the above factors, the first respondent, the Governor of Tamil Nadu issued a notification G. O. No. 1806, Public (Special B) dt 25-10-1984, under Art.166(3) allocating the subjects dealt with by Mr. M. G. Ramachandran, the Chief Minister to Mr. V. R. Nedunchezhian, the Finance Minister, during the period of the former's medical treatment. That notification is not under challenge here. Thereafter, on 15-11-1984, the Council of Ministers had met and decided to dissolve the Assembly and the Finance Minister, who is authorised to attend and deal with the portfolios of the Chief Minister by the earlier notification issued by the Governor, communicated the said decision to the Governor. Acting on the said communication, the first respondent had issued the impugned notification dissolving the Assembly. It is in the light of the above facts which had not been disputed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the tenability of the contentions advanced by the petitioner have to be considered.