Vibhu Bakhru ORDER
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Hon'ble 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.
Or in alternate this Hon'ble Court may please declare the sixth part of the fourth session of the sixth Legislative Assembly of National Capital Territory of Delhi unconstitutional, illegal and invalid with all consequential effects."
2. The fifth part of the fourth session of the Delhi Legislative Assembly was adjourned sine die on 15.11.2016. The session was resumed on 17.01.2017 (the sixth part of the fourth session). The notification for the same was put up on the website of the Delhi Legislative Assembly on 10.01.2017. 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.
3. Section 10(1) of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 is set out below:-
"10. Special address by the Lieutenant Governor.-(1) 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."
4. According to the respondents, the address by the Lt. Governor was not required since the sixth part of the fourth session, which commenced on 17.01.2017, was only in resumption of the session that had been adjourned sine die on 15.11.2016. It is stated that the first session of the Delhi Legislative Assembly for the year 2017 had commenced on 06.03.2017. Concededly, the same had commenced with the address of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor.
5. The petitioner contends that the session that commenced on 17.01.2017 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.
6. 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.: MANU/SC/0212/2010 : (2010) 4 SCC 1, 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 Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi 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. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:
21. In the matter of Special Reference No. 1 of 2002, In re [MANU/SC/0891/2002 : (2002) 8 SCC 237] a Constitution Bench of this Court while interpreting Article 85(2) of the Constitution observed: (SCC p. 278, para 52)
"52. ... When the House is prorogued, ........