Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Advocate Aires Rodrigues, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State of Goa to ensure compliance with Article 174 of the Constitution by summoning the Legislative Assembly or, in failure thereof, for dismissal of the Government. The petition was based on the ground that the last session of the Goa Legislative Assembly was held on 3rd September 2016, and the six-month period under Article 174(1) would expire on 3rd March 2017. The petitioner contended that the Governor was obligated to summon the Assembly before that date. However, during the pendency of the petition, the Governor of Goa issued a notification on 26th February 2017 summoning the Legislative Assembly to meet on 28th February 2017. The Court noted that the Assembly met and conducted a one-day session on that date. The Court observed that the constitutional mandate under Article 174 had been complied with by the Governor's notification. The Court also noted that no interim order had been passed in the petition and that a new Government was to take charge shortly. Consequently, the Court held that the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it. The Court did not delve into the proceedings of the one-day session as it was beyond the scope of the petition. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa, comprising Justice Anoop V. Mohta and Justice Nutan D. Sardessai, on 1st March 2017.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Summoning of Legislative Assembly - Article 174 of the Constitution of India - Mandamus - The petitioner sought a writ directing the State to summon the Assembly or dismiss the Government, alleging violation of the six-month gap mandate. The Court held that the Governor had already issued a notification under Article 174(1) summoning the Assembly to meet on 28-02-2017, thereby complying with the constitutional requirement. The petition became infructuous as the session was held. (Paras 2-5) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Mandamus - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus as the constitutional mandate had been fulfilled and no further direction was necessary. The Court also noted that the new Government was to take charge shortly and the petition had become infructuous. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondent to ensure compliance with Article 174 of the Constitution by summoning the Legislative Assembly or, in failure thereof, for dismissal of the Government.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed as having become infructuous in view of the Governor's notification summoning the Legislative Assembly on 28-02-2017 and the session having been held.
Law Points
- Article 174 of the Constitution of India
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Article 356 of the Constitution of India
- Governor's power to summon assembly
- Mandamus
- Writ jurisdiction
- Constitutional mandate of six-month gap between sessions
