Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: article 196 in K.P. Kochanujan Thirumulpad vs State Of Kerala on 7 October, 1960Matching Fragments
4. But, to proceed with the narration of the events, on September 26, 1960, the petitioner applied to this Court claiming a writ in the nature of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, against the State of Kerala, to forbear from, or pursue or consider, or seek to make the Kerala Agrarian, Relations Bill, 1957, as passed by the former Legislative Assembly of the State on June 10, 1960, law in the State.
5. One of the grounds, on which the relief is asked for, is that under Article 196 a Bill must become law during the lifetime of the Assembly then in existence, cannot survive the dissolution of the House, and cannot be considered by the new Assembly after general election. in support of the argument, reliance has been placed on the words 'return', 'reconsider", and 'pass again' in the proviso to Article 201; and it is urged that the words would not have been used, had the intention been to vest the new Assembly with authority to reconsider either the whole or part of the Bill.
17. The petitioner's learned Advocate has urged that the proviso to Article 201 contemplates direction to the Assembly, that passed the bill; otherwise the words 'reconsideration' and 'return' would not have been used. in support of the argument, he has relied on Article 196 (3) and (5), which provides that a bill pending in the Legislature of a State, shall not lapse by reason of the prerogation; but would, on dissolution. He urges that any doubt concerning such lapsing, is swept away by Article 196 (5) which says :
Therefore, Clause 60 is the only one, against which the petitioner complains; but, the modification required is not such as to make his position worse than what it was under the bill as passed by the Assembly. It is common ground that, after the bill had been passed on June 10, 1959, till the Governor's message to the present Assembly, the petitioner has not come to this Court for any relief; which means that the passage of the Bill was regarded as not causing any immediate injury.
It is also clear that under Article 196 (5) the dissolution affects the Bills pending in the Assembly, and cannot extend to those awaiting assents. Indeed, though the Governor and the Assembly together constitute the Legislative authority, yet the petitioner's learned advocate has not shown us any provision in the Constitution, directing that the assents must be given during the lifetime of the Assembly, that passed the Bills.