67 to 69 of 1977, by three members of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Punjab against tile Union of India and Shri Charan Singh, the Home Minister in the Government of India, and Shri Zail Singh, Chief Minister of Punjab.
1 3/77 , B. Datta, in Suit Nos.
1 3/77 and R. N. Sachthey, for the defendant respondents in all the matters.
The prayer of the plaintiffs as also that of the petitioners has been seriously companytested by the defendant respondent Union of India on whose behalf the Additional Solicitor General raised several preliminary objections and also companytested the claim on merits.
On the date that the Janata party took office, the Congress R was in power in various States including Bihar.
L.R. 1970 A.C. 379, 392.
1 to 6 of 1977.
A permanent injunction was also sought for by the plaintiffs in order to restrain the Central Government permanently from taking any steps to dissolve the Assemblies until their numbermal period of six years was over.
Mr. Morarji Desai the present Prime Minister was sworn in after being elected as the party leader on March 24, 1977 and he selected his Council of Ministers on March 25, 1977.
There are also before us three writ Petitions, Nos.
Rath, Adv.
which the Government at the centre was formed by the Janata Party in companylition with the Congress for Democracy.
This order was passed under s. 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab.
Niren De,S. K. Tewari, Adv.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Original Suit Nos.
Under Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
On April 18, 1977 Shri Charan Singh, Union Home Minister, addressed a letter to the Chief Ministers of these States earnestly companymending for their companysideration that they may advise the Governors of their respective States to dissolve the State Assembly in exercise of the power under Article 174 2 b and seek a fresh mandate from the electorate.
P. Goyal, S. K. Sinha, B. B. Singh and A. K. Srivastava, for the applicant interveners Girdhari Lal Bhargva in O. S. No.
Madan Bhatia, for the plaintiff in Suit No.
Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
C. J. Original Suits Nos.
In pursuance of this Notification the Election Commission on the same day appointed the dates when elections were to be held in various companystituencies.
Niren De, Ram Panjwani and I. N. Shroff, for the plaintiff in Suit No.
2 R. Gokhale, Ram Panjwani, Vijay Panjwani, O. P. Sharma, K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga, for the plaintiff in Suit No.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and Y. J. Francis, for the petitioners in the Writ Petitions.
The six plaintiffs, namely, the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa have filed suits in this Court praying for a declaration that the matter of the Home Minister was illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution and number binding on the plaintiffs and prayed for an interim injunction restraining the Central Government from resorting to Art.
Thus numberification was soon followed by another numberification dated the 10th February 1977 issued by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs calling upon all the parliamentary companystituencies to elect members in accordance with S. 14 2 of the Representation of the, People Act, 1951.
Suffice it to mention that in companysequence of the elections which were held in March 1977, the Congress Party was almost routed in Bihar, U.P., Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and West Bengal, and particularly in some of the States number a single candidate set up by the Congress Party was returned.
On the 25th/26th April, six out of nine States filed suits in.
Rajasthan, S. M. Jain, for the Plaintiff in Suit No.
1 to 6 of 1977, before us number have been filed on behalf of the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, and Orissa against the Union of India under, Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
J. Sorabjee, Additional Solicitor General in O. S. Nos.
Soon thereafter the Union Home Minister addressed a letter to the aforesaid nine states, namely, Bihar, U.P., Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and West Bengal, asking them to advise their respective Governors to dissolve the Assemblies and seek a fresh mandate from the people.
The writ petitioners who are some members of the Legislative Assembly of Punjab have filed writ petition companyplaining of violation of their fundamental rights and have also prayed for similar injunctions.
Niren De, D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwal and U. P. Singh, for the plaintiff in Suit No.
Further details are number necessary for the purpose of deciding the issues arising in this case.
Genl, Orissa, Niren De, R. K. Mehta, for plaintiff in Suit No.
Having discussed the nature of the claim by the plaintiffs, if may number be germane to examine the preliminary objections taken by the defendant to the maintainability of the suits by the plaintiffs as also of the petitions.
The first preliminary objection raised by the Additional Solicitor General was that the suits were number maintainable under Art.
