Andhra HC (PreTelangana) In The Matter Of: A. Sreeramulu vs Unknown on 19 March, 1973 Equivalent citations: AIR1974AP106 ORDER 1. The petitioner is a member of the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh. In this application for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, he questions the validity of the proclamation of the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution imposing what is familiarly called 'President's rule' in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Order of the President directing the Governor of the State of Andhra Pradesh to perform all the functions of the Government. The proclamation and the order were both made on 1811973. The Writ Petition was filed on 931973. 2. In his petition, the petitioner alleges that there was no circumstances whatever which could have led the President to be satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the Government of the State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. According to the petitioner the Proclamation was mala fide and obliquely motivated. The truth, according to him, was that there was a crisis in the leadership of the State Congress Legislature Party : the leader Sri P. V. Narasimha Rao had lost the confidence of the majority of members because of the partisan attitude on the Mulki Rules issue: the proclamation had been issued not because there was a constitutional crisis in the State, but with a vied to set the house of the Congress Legislature Party in order and to resolve the crisis within the Party. The petitioner urges that if Sri, P. V. Narasimha Rao had lost the confidence of the Congress Legislature Party and had tendered the resignation, it was the duty of the Governor to explore the possibility of forming another Ministry. Instead, the petitioner says, the Governor submitted a report inviting President's rule. The petitioner further claims that the President's Proclamation had been issued to stifle any democratic expression of opinion by the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh on the burning question of bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into two States. 3. When the Writ Petition came up before me on 1331973 for admission I felt a doubt whether the issues raised by the petitioner were justifiable issues and whether the validity of the Proclamation could be the subjectmatter of an enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution. I also felt that the nature of the issues raised were such that a Rule Nisi should not be issued by applying the ordinary rule of a 'triable issue' or an 'arguable point' but that a Rule Nisi should be issued only if the petitioner made out a substantial prima facie case. Therefore, I heard elaborate arguments from Mr. P. A. Choudary first on 12th and again on 13th to which date I adjourned the Writ Petition at the instance of Mr. Choudary who wanted more time. On 14th I also heard the learned Principal Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the Central Government who were kind enough to assist me though no Rule Nisi had been issued. Having heard elaborate arguments , I am convinced that the Writ Petition must be dismissed for a variety of reasons. 4. Before considering the submissions of the petitioner it is just as well that I refer to the events that have taken place in this State in the last few months. In the wake of the judgment of the Supreme Court in what is now well known as the 'Multi Rules Case' came the demand of the employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh belonging to the Andhra area that the Mulki Rules should be scrapped on one side and the demand of the employees belonging to the Telangana area that the Mulki Rules should be strictly enforced on the other side. A controversy which involved none but the Government employees in the beginning spread step and came to involve large sections of the people in the whole of the Andra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Several demands sprung up . A demand that the Mulki Rules should be scrapped snowballed into other demands that Andhras living in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad should have equal treatment not only in the matter of employment but also in the matter of admission into educational institutions etc., and other demands such as the scrapping of the Telengana Regional Committee etc., into a demand for a separate Andhra State. Large sections of the people belonging to different walks of life jumped into the fray. An agitation was started for a separate Andhra State. The Prime Minister in a bid to solve the problem announced a Five Point Formula pursuant to which the Parliament passed the Mulki Rules Act. Apparently sections of people were not satisfied with the solution afforded by the Mulki Rules Act. The agitation continued. The Deputy Chief Minister and ten other ministers resigned from the Cabinet. The agitation in the Andhra area took a violent turn . Central Reserve Police and the Army were called in. On one s