STATE OF PUNJAB versus SAT PAL DANG & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 30-07-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
SAT PAL DANG & ORS. 
I uly 30, 1968 
(M. H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., 
J. C. SHAH, 
V. RAMASWAM!, 
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Constitution of Jndic, 1950, Arts. 174, 189, 199, 208, 209, 212 and 
213-J{u/es of Procedure atrd Conduct of Business in the Punjab Legisla-
tiv~ Assemb~y, rr. 7, 105 and 112-Prorogation of Assembly by Governor, 
how to be notified-When co1nmences-Governor's power of proniulga-
tion of Ordinance-Scope of-If' extends to ntaking law under Art. 209-
Punjab Lc{!islc.tive (ReJ?ulation of Procedure in Relation 
to 
Financial 
Rwiness) Ordinance, (1 of 1968), s. 3-Cotzflict with Art. 189(4) 
and 
r. 105 of Rules of l'rocedurc-Jf 
section 
unconstitutional-Speakers 
ruling how far final and beyond challenge in courts of law-Deputy 
Speaker, if can certify Money Bills in place of Speaker. 
On tho 7th of March, 1968, the proceedings in the Punjab Legislative 
Assembly led to rowdy scenes and the Speaker, acting und·,r r. 105 of 
the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Legislative 
A~embly made. under Art. 
208 of the 
C-Onstitution, 
c1djourncd 
the 
Assembly for two months. 
This led to an impas<;;e. 
The -Assembly was 
in session but it was put in a state of inaction by the adjournn1ent. 
The 
Budget Session of the A'Sembly had to reach a conclusion before 31st 
March, as, after thai date, no money ~ould be drawn from the Consoli~ 
dated Fund and no expcndiru"rc in the State could 
~ incurred. 
Tbe 
(iovcrnor, therefore, on 11th March prorogued the Assembly under Art. 
174(2)(a). The order of the Governor was caused to he printed in the 
Stale Gazelle the same dav by the Chief Secretary uocler 
the Business 
Rules, and copies of the Gazelle were despatched to the Secretary of the 
Assembly, the Speaker and nther members on the following day. 
On 
13th March, the Governor promulgated the Punjab Legislature (Regula-
tion. of Procedure in Relation to Financial Business) Ordinance, 1968. 
Section 3 of the Ordinance provides that the sitting of either House of 
Lc~is1aturc was not to be adjourned \\lithout the consent of the House 
until completion of financial Bu-;iness. 
On 14th 
~iarch, the 
Governor 
summoned the Legislative Assembly under Art. t 74, fixing 18th March 
for its sitting, and. under Art. 175(2). directed the Ass-:!mbly to consider 
the E.stimatcs of Expenditure, the Demands for Supplementary Grants and 
two Appropriation Bills. 
On 18th March, :lfter considering certain other 
matters, the Speaker nlled that the House was prorogued not on the 11th 
f\1:i.rch but on the ·18th. and that 
in accordance with his earlier ruling 
dated 7th March, the Hou-;c stood adjourned for two months. 
After 
~ornc commotion the Deputy Speaker occupied th-~ Chair and the Assembly 
kt..-pl sitting. 
The procccding:s were conducted ~ithout demur even f.rom 
tho opposition. 
'fhc Bills \\'Crc passed. 
The Rills w:re then transmitted 
to the Legislative Council certified by the Depu.ty Speaker that they w7ro 
Monev Bills. 
lllc Speaker wrote to the Cha1'rman of the 
Lcg1slallvc 
CounCil pointing out that there. \VJS no certificate hy him as req~ircd hy 
Art. 199( 4) and that he had ad1ourned the A''".:n1h.lv when the B1lh were 
adopted. 
The Legislative Council, hoY-:r:vcr. coa .. 1dcrcd and pas~<l the 
two Bills and the Governor assented to them. 
On the questions whether : (I) the prorogation took effect on 18th 
Marett and therefore the summoning of the Lc~1slature before prorogation 
\O'as invalid; (2) the Ordinance could not be pas":d by the Governor, 
bocau.qc, the prorogation was a fraud on the Constitution and since the 
A 
B 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
PUNJAB V. SAT PAL 
479 
prorogation was invalid the House continued to be in session; ( 3) The 
Go\-emor's power to promulgate an Ordinance is confined to Lists II and 
III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; ( 4) Section 3 of the 
Ordinance was unconstitutional as there was a conflict with, (a) r. 105 
oi. the Rules of Procedure made under Art. 208 which gives power to 
the Speaker to adjourn the Assembly or suspend sitting in case of grave 
disorder, and (b) Art. 189(4) which gives power to the ·Speaker to 
adjourn the Assembly or suspend the meeting for want of quorum; (5) 
the ruling of the Speaker given on 18th March was not open to challenge 
in courts; (6) the further proceedings in the Assembly were illegal and 
(7) the two Appropriation Acts were ultra vires because. the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.