RAGHU THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these six writ petitions, similar question of law is involved, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.For convenient disposal of the writ petitions, facts given in M.P. No. 4093 of 1992 are taken into consideration.

(2.) The petitioner has by this writ petition prayed that the provisions of Section 6-A as amended by Amending Act No. 18 of 1992 of M. P. Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam, 1972 (for short the Act of 1972) may be declared void as being unconstitutional. The petitioner is a public spirited person and he is said to be National Convenor of Samajwadi Manch. He is also stated to be a social and political worker. He has challenged the validity of Section 6-A of the Act of 1972, as amended by Act No. 18 of 1992, whereby a pension of Rupees 1500/- per mensem has been provided to every member of the M.P. Legislative Assembly and no minimum period of membership has been prescribed for being entitled to receive such a pension. It is contended that even a Member of Legislative Assembly (for short-M.L.A.) who has remained as such for a period of a day, would also be entitled for pension of Rs. 1500/- per mensem and this is violative of Art. 159 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that by not providing the requisite minimum period of membership, the enactment is in colourable exercise of legislative power and hence S. 6-A as amended by Act No. 18 of 1992 may be declared ultra vires.

(3.) In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to refer to amend Section 6-A of the Act which reads as under :