Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On the other hand it is pointed out that an adjournment of the House has no such effect on parliamentary proceedings and that after adjournment each House proceeds to transact the business previously appointed and all proceedings are resumed at the stage at which they were left before the adjournment. In further support of this contention Mr. Palkhivala pointed out that under our Constitution pending bills alone are excepted and that is expressly provided for if one reads Article 174 with Article 196. Article 174(2) states that the Governor may from time to time prorogue the House or either House and Article 194(3) states that a Bill pending in the Legislature of a State shall not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the House or Houses thereof. Anson in his Law & Custom of the Constitution at page 73 states that prorogation ends the session of both Houses simultaneously, and terminates all pending business, and a Bill which may be pending at the date of the prorogation must begin at the earliest stage when Parliament is summoned again and prorogation is effected at the end of a session either by the King in person or by Royal Commission. In this connection my attention was drawn to Rule 171 of the Rules of Procedure of the U.P. Legislative Assembly. It is under the Chapter headed "General Rules of Procedure" and Rule 171 runs as follows:

34. Therefore, it is clear that this is a matter which is part of the procedure of the House and English practice is not assimilated under the Constitution for the purposes of procedure and there is nothing in the Constitution or the Rules lending colour to the arguments advanced. Under the Constitution legislative procedure is laid down under Article 107 in connection with the Union Parliament and under Sub-clause (3) a Bill pending' in Parliament shall not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the Houses and under Sub-clause (4) a Bill pending in the Council of States which has not been passed by the House of the People shall not lapse on a dissolution of the House of the People. Under Article 196(5) a Bill which is pending in the Legislative Assembly of a State, or which having been passed by the Legislative Assembly is pending in the Legislative Council, shall lapse on the dissolution of the Assembly. Far from the plaintiff's case being supported by these articles, it is clear that this is purely a matter entirely of procedure. A similar provision is to be found in the Act of 1935 whereby under Section 30 a Bill pending in the Dominion Legislature is not to lapse by reason of the prorogation of the Legislature. Even reading Rule 171 of the Rules of Procedure of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, it says that when the Assembly is prorogued all pending notices shall lapse. In these circumstances it is not possible to accept the contention on behalf of the plaintiff that all pending matters, whatever they be, must lapse apart from Bills that are saved from lapsing under the Constitution.