High Court of Delhi

Prashant Kumar Umrao Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

MANU/DE/1253/2019

09.04.2019

Constitution

Whenever House resumes after it is adjourned sine die, its resumption does not amount to commencement of session

The Petitioner has filed the present petition praying that, present Court may issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi or any other competent authority to declare the sixth part of the Fourth Session of the Sixth Legislative Assembly of National capital territory of Delhi to be illegal, invalid with all its consequential effects.

The fifth part of the fourth session of the Delhi Legislative Assembly was adjourned sine die on 15th November, 2016. The session was resumed on 17th January, 2017 (the sixth part of the fourth session). The Notification for the same was put up on the website of the Delhi Legislative Assembly on 10th January, 2017. The Petitioner claims that, the said session is illegal in terms of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, as the first session of each year is required to commence with the address by the Lt. Governor.

Section 10(1) of the Act, 1991 provides that, at the commencement of the first session after each general election to the Legislative Assembly and at the commencement of the first session of each year, the Lieutenant Government shall address the Legislative Assembly and inform it of the causes of its summons." The Petitioner contends that, the session that commenced on 17th January, 2017 ought to be considered as the first session of the year 2017, as the same could not be left at the whims and fancies of the Speaker.

The aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramdas Athawale (5) v. Union of India and Ors., wherein the Court had explained the distinction between adjournment and prorogation, in the context of Article 87(1) of the Constitution of India, which is pari materia to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act, 1991. The Supreme Court had expressly held that, whenever the House resumes after it is adjourned sine die, its resumption for the purpose of continuing its business does not amount to the commencement of the session.

Present Court is also of the view that, the present petition also warrants the imposition of costs. The Petitioner has unnecessarily sought to raise a controversy, where none exists. Such frivolous litigation ought to be discouraged. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with costs.

Relevant

Ramdas Athawale vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. MANU/SC/0212/2010

Tags : Legislative Assembly Session Resumption

Share :