Monday, June 6 2005 17:02 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today (Jun 6, 2005) sought the appearance of Attorney General (AG) or any law officer of the Centre nominated by him for hearing the petition filed by former Legislators of Bihar challenging the decision to dissolve the State Assembly.

A Bench comprising Justice P V Reddi and Justice Arijit Pasayat fixed June 10, 2005 to hear the petition filed by four former MLAs, Rameshwar Prasad Chaurasia (Bharatiya Janata Party), Kishore Kumar Munna (Independents), Rampravesh Rai (Janata Dal United) and Dr Anil Kumar (Lok Janshakti Party- breakaway).

The MLAs who were all elected in the 2005 elections, accused the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government at Centre of subverting democratic norms at the behest of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Laloo Prasad to prevent Janata Dal-United (JDU) leader Nitish Kumar from staking claim to form Government.

Since no one appeared for the Centre when matter came for hearing, the Bench asked senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the former MLAs, to serve a copy of the petition to the AG or any law officer of the Centre.

Besides the Centre, the petitioners have also named Governor Buta Singh as a respondent on which the Bench sought clarification from Rohatgi as to why the Governor has been impeded as a party in the petition.

At the outset of the hearing, Rohatgi alleged that the action of Governor to recommend dissolution of the Assembly was not proper as when the realignment of political forces began on May 20, 2005 and even before somebody could stake claim for the Government formation, the Governor sent a report on the political development and the Cabinet decided to dissolve the Assembly.

The petitioners stated that 22 of the 29 MLAs of LJP had agreed to merge with JDU and the party leader Nitish Kumar was to stake claim before the Governor on May 23.

"When it became evident on the evening of May 22 that the majority was veering around an National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government led by Nitish Kumar, a decision was taken in the midst of darkness at midnight to recommend the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly," the counsel said.

Criticising the Governor for sending a report containing "baseless allegations" about non-existing horse-trading, the petitioners said that the dissolution of an Assembly could not be done without an honest appraisal that the governance of the State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

"Dissolution of the Assembly within 79 days of its creation without holding any meaningful efforts to explore the possibility of a formation of a popular Government itself is unconstitutional," they said.

On the two Public Interest Litigation (PILs) on the issue, the Bench said that they have to be heard separately and posted them for being heard on the same date.

On the PIL filed by one Shiv Kumar Prasad Singh, who had unsuccessfully contested Assembly polls in 2000, the Bench sought to know from the counsel as how the petition was in public interest. Terming dissolution of Assembly as "unconstitutional, a Singh has sought quashing of the May 23 notification by the Home Ministry on Presidential proclamation in this regard.

Alleging violation of Fundamental Rights, the petitioner has also sought a stay in the election process in the State till his petition was decided by the apex Court.

A Delhi-based advocate Viplav Sharma, through a PIL, has also challenged dissolution of Bihar Assembly and sought to restrain the EC from holding fresh elections in the State.