From Our Special Correspondent

Daijiworld News Network - Panaji

Panaji, Feb 14: A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa comprising of Justice F M Reis and Justice Nutan Sardessai today directed the Goa government to inform the court on February 27 the stand of the government in view of the Supreme Court judgements making it mandatory to convene a Session of the Legislative Assembly within six months of its last sitting.

The court directions came while hearing a petition filed by advocate Aires Rodrigues seeking directions to the Goa Government to comply with the mandate of Article 174 of the Constitution of India by either summoning a session or dissolving the Goa Legislative Assembly.

Drawing the courts attention that the last session of the Goa Legislative Assembly was on August 31 last year, advocate Rodrigues pointed out that the law department had in November last year moved a file for summoning the session and that on January 6 had also opined that the assembly needed to be dissolved but that the government had just been sitting on the advice given by the law department.

In the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, advocate Rodrigues has stated that surprisingly there was no proposal by the government to convene a session of the legislative assembly as required under the Constitution of India though the government was duty bound to ensure that the constitutional mandate is followed.

Stating that there was an imminent danger of a constitutional breakdown and the continuance of an illegal and unconstitutional government, advocate Rodrigues in his petition has stated that a government which defies the constitution or does not follow the constitutional mandate cannot continue in office even for a moment and requires to be dismissed.

Advocate Rodrigues has pointed out that in terms of Article 174 of the constitution it was the duty of the governor to summon the House and that six months should not intervene between its last sitting and the next sitting.

Advocate Rodrigues has further stated that the Supreme Court has held that Article 174 was mandatory and only when the State Assembly is dissolved or kept under suspended animation in exercise of power under Article 356 of the Constitution, that the mandate of Section 174 is not mandatory.

Advocate Rodrigues has stated that the continuation of the legislative assembly without its meeting in compliance with Article 174 of the Constitution would not only be a travesty of the constitutional mandate but also an absolute breakdown of the constitutional scheme.

Advocate Rodrigues also stated that if the chief minister refuses to recommend the convening of the assembly session to meet the mandate of Article 174, that then in exercise of powers under Article 174(2) (b) of the constitution, the governor has powers to dissolve the legislative assembly.

Stating that the continuance of the government by constitutional infringement would not only fall in the face of the constitutional mandate and the constitutional framework but also create a total mockery in permitting the government which flouts the constitutional mandate to continue in office, advocate Rodrigues in his petition has sought that the government must either convene a session of the House or dissolve it failing which the government will have no right to continue in office if it fails to fulfill the mandate of Article 174 (1) of the Constitution.