ALL INDIA LAWYERS COUNCIL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1991-4-21
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 30,1991

ALL INDIA LAWYERS COUNCIL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) UNDER Article 164 (2) of the Constitution, "the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the State". Under Article 164 (4)" a Minister. . . . . . . . . . shall cease to be a Minister" "if for any period of six consecutive months" he "is not a member of the Legislature", which in a State having unicameral Legislature, like that of West bengal, would mean the Legislative Assembly only.
(2.) WOULD a dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, whether by expiration of period or otherwise, operate as an automatic termination or extinction of the Council of Ministers? Would the Ministers also stand discharged or removed from their offices with the cessation of the Legislative assembly? An affirmative answer would warrant an immediate issuance of Writ of Warranto against the Council of ministers of the State of West Bengal; while a negative answer would obviously result in rejection of the Writ Petition.
(3.) BUT in such a case, should not the Ministers, whose warrant to continue to hold office is challenged, be made parties to the proceedings? Should a proceeding challenging their right to hold office be proceeded with behind their back without giving them opportunity to participate therein ? it is true that the State itself, of which the Ministers represent and form part of the Executive Organ, is the Party. Respondent. But it is not that just an executive or Ministerial action has been assailed, so that the State as the party-Respondent can effectively represent through any of its authorised officers. Since what has been challenged is the very authority of the Ministers themselves to continue to hold office, the question whether the proceeding would suffer from any serious infirmity in their absence assumes great significance. But I would still be not inclined to pursue this question, since the same has not been urged by the learned Advocate-General or the learned Government pleader appearing for the State Respondent and the case can be disposed of on a much broader aspect of Constitutional law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.