SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.B. Sinha and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.

Writ Petition (C) No. 86 of 2004. D/d. 28.2.2005.

Ramdas Athawale (4) - Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- H.K. Puri, Advocate.

For the Respondent :- G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General and R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General (Devadatt, Gaurav Agarwal and P. Parameswaran, Advocates).

Constitution of India, Articles 32, 141, 145(3), 85 and 87 - Matter rendered infructuous - Academic question involved - Reference to Constitution Bench - Academic question a involved as to interpretation of Constitution, need not be dismissed on ground that it had been rendered infructuous and that petitioner could not be allowed any relief, if in its prospective bearing, it is important enough - Matter referred to Constitution Bench.

[Para 2]

Cases Referred :-

1. Ramdas Athawale (3) v. Union of India, (2007) 15 SCC 707.

2. Ramdas Athawale (2) v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 391.

3. Ramdas Athawale (1) v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 390.

ORDER

S.B. Sinha, J. - By an order dated 20-1-20051 a Bench presided over by the Honble the Chief Justice opined: (Ramdas Athawale (3) case, Ramdas Athawale (3) v. Union of India, (2007) 15 SCC 707, p. 707, paras 1 and 2)

"1. Prima facie we are of the opinion that this petition is rendered infructuous in view of the Lok Sabha having been dissolved. Thus the present petition is of academic interest only inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be allowed any relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner insists on arguing the matter on merits and submits that either the matter should be heard by a Constitution Bench or the order dated 13-9-2004, Ramdas Athawale (2) v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 391 should be recalled.

2. List before the Bench which passed the order dated 13-9-2004, Ramdas Athawale (2) v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 391.

2. It appears to us that unfortunately the order of this Court dated 8-3-2004, Ramdas Athawale (1) v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 390; was not brought to Their Lordships notice. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order leaves no manner of doubt that the Bench, while issuing notice was aware of the position that election dates having been announced, the question has to be considered having regard to its importance as regards its prospective bearing on the issue of dissolution of Parliament. Furthermore after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Bench while issuing rule, found that this matter involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Articles 85 and 87 of the Constitution and in that view of the matter, directed the matter to be placed before a Constitution Bench for hearing in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution. Keeping in view the fact that only prospective bearing of the question is required to be taken into consideration, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for recalling of the order dated 13-9-20042. The said order is, therefore, reiterated. Let the matter be now placed for hearing before a Constitution Bench.

.