A SREERAMULU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh. In this application for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, he questions the validity of the proclamation of the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution imposing what is familiarly called 'President's rule' in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Order of the President directing the Governor of the State of Andhra Pradesh to perform all the functions of the Government. The proclamation and the order were both made on 18-1-1973. The Writ Petition was filed on 9-3-1973.

(2.) In his petition, the petitioner alleges that there was no circumstances whatever which could have led the President to be satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the Government of the State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. According to the petitioner the Proclamation was mala fide and obliquely motivated. The truth, according to him, was that there was a crisis in the leadership of the State Congress Legislature Party : the leader Sri P. V. Narasimha Rao had lost the confidence of the majority of members because of the partisan attitude on the Mulki Rules issue: the proclamation had been issued not because there was a constitutional crisis in the State, but with a vied to set the house of the Congress Legislature Party in order and to resolve the crisis within the Party. The petitioner urges that if Sri, P. V. Narasimha Rao had lost the confidence of the Congress Legislature Party and had tendered the resignation, it was the duty of the Governor to explore the possibility of forming another Ministry. Instead, the petitioner says, the Governor submitted a report inviting President's rule. The petitioner further claims that the President's Proclamation had been issued to stifle any democratic expression of opinion by the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh on the burning question of bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into two States.

(3.) When the Writ Petition came up before me on 13-3-1973 for admission I felt a doubt whether the issues raised by the petitioner were justifiable issues and whether the validity of the Proclamation could be the subject-matter of an enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution. I also felt that the nature of the issues raised were such that a Rule Nisi should not be issued by applying the ordinary rule of a 'triable issue' or an 'arguable point' but that a Rule Nisi should be issued only if the petitioner made out a substantial prima facie case. Therefore, I heard elaborate arguments from Mr. P. A. Choudary first on 12th and again on 13th to which date I adjourned the Writ Petition at the instance of Mr. Choudary who wanted more time. On 14th I also heard the learned Principal Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the Central Government who were kind enough to assist me though no Rule Nisi had been issued. Having heard elaborate arguments , I am convinced that the Writ Petition must be dismissed for a variety of reasons.