R KRISHNAIAH PRESIDENT ANDHRA PRADESH BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE ASSOCIATION HYDERABAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri R. Krishnaiah, President of Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Welfare Association in this petition filed as Public interest Litigation seeks to question the legality and validity of the decision taken by the Governor of State of Andhra Pradesh to dissolve the State Assembly and requesting the 4th respondent to continue in Office along with his colleagues in the Council of Ministers as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 172 and 174 of the Constitution of India and has sought consequential direction to the appropriate authorities to ensure that the term of the State Assembly renders its full term. Along with the writ petition, miscellaneous petitions have also been filed praying that pending disposal of the writ petition the order of the Governor dissolving the Legislative Assembly be stayed, direction be issued to the first respondent, (Union of India) to exercise powers under Article 356 of the Constitution of India and to direct the 3rd respondent not to take further steps towards holding the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly.

(2.) The petitioner says that all the political parties are vexed with the present Government in the State and are ready to go for polls and most of them are confident that this ruling party will be voted out of power. It is not as if the petitioner is invoking this Courts' Constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that political parties are hesitant to face the Polls. The reason which appears to have prompted the petitioner in approaching the Court and claiming the reliefs sought for in the writ petition are disclosed in para 59 of the petitioner saying like most of the people, the petitioner feels that it is unethical, unconstitutional and illegal dissolution of a Legislative Assembly, which has the effect of depriving the legislators' rights to represent their constituencies till September, 2004.

(3.) At the admission stage, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question as to whether it requires to be admitted thereby calling upon respondents to file their replies and then decide the writ petition on merits.