MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a public interest litigation filed by dr. Keshava Rao, a Senior Congress Party leader, who has held many elective posts both in the Government of Andhra Pradesh and in the Congress Party. He is also associated with several non-governmental organizations, trade unions, and is a human rights activist besides a member of teaching faculty in Osmania University. ( 2 ) PETITIONER brings to the notice of the court about mal-administration prevailing in the State of Andhra pradesh and believes president Rule could have been imposed in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as according to the petitioner, there is breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State of A. P. and as such action under Article 356 of the constitution of India should have been initiated by the President of India. Petitioner in his endeavor to get President s Rule imposed in the State of Andhra Pradesh, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the Union of India, the 1st respondent herein, to act and invoke powers under article 356 of the Constitution of India and take appropriate steps under the constitutional provisions thereby discharge its constitutional duty in the circumstances detailed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and seeks to pass such other order as is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 3 ) THE gist of allegations made in the writ petition in support of the plea of the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the 1st respondent-Union of India is dissolution of state Assembly by the Governor on the advice of the State Cabinet on 14-11 -2003, on the basis of a resolution passed by the state Cabinet. It is mainly stated that the cabinet took into consideration activities of the extremists, which are adversely affecting the investments into the State and negating the efforts of the Government of create opportunities for employment and a better life to the people and also the recent attack on the Chief Minister by the Naxalites reflects sense of growing desperation among the extremists and losing their ideological fig leaf of social and economic exploitation. Petitioner stated that in the resolution it was further alleged that the opposition party on their part has been playing an extremely opportunistic role by failing to take a clear stand on the issue of extremism and that in view of the grave threat posed to the development of the State by extremism, the Council of Ministers resolved to recommend the Governor of andhra Pradesh to dissolve the Legislative assembly in order to seek fresh mandate from the people. ( 4 ) LAYING emphasis on the said resolution, petitioner averred that the cabinet resolution itself is an admission of fact that the State is house-holding to extremists violence. Petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court several killings of innocent citizens by naxalites from 1996 onwards till November, 2003 as per the report of Human Rights Committee and the police action against the activities of naxals and shooting them down in the name of encounters and thus there is failure of administration in the State of Andhra pradesh. It is also stated on the basis of events narrated in the resolution that there is a serious threat to the State development resulting breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State, believes imposition of President s Rule under Article 356 of the constitution of India is the only solution. Petitioner further stated that when the cabinet resolves to get the Assembly dissolved much earlier to completion of five years term on the basis of the instances indicated in the resolution, the Governor of andhra Pradesh dissolved the Assembly, but could not have permitted the Council of ministers to continue till elections are held, which according to the petitioner is improper. Petitioner also stated that the 1st respondent-Union of India is though aware that the situation in the State of Andhra pradesh as reflected in the resolution passed by the Cabinet on 14-11-2003 leading to dissolution of the Assembly and that the grounds shown in the resolution passed by the Cabinet are sufficient for issuance of Presidential Proclamation under article 356 of the Constitution of India and yet neither the Union of India nor the governor of the State reported to the president as required under Article 356 of the Constitution of India for imposition of president s Rule. It is claimed that when these two authorities have failed to act, petitioner is compelled to approach this court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent-Union of India to invoke jurisdiction under Article 356 of the constitution of India and to take appropriate steps under the constitutional scheme. ( 5 ) AT the stage of admission itself we desired the learned Advocate General to assist us on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the lines of the relief sought by the petitioner and accordingly on the next day a detailed hearing is undertaken by us. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior counsel took us to various provisions contained in the Constitution of India relating to the powers and functions ot the president of India, composition of the Union government, powers and functions of the governor of a State and the composition of the State Cabinet and also the provisions under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. The bone of the contentions made on behalf of the writ petitioner is that the State Cabinet passed a resolution on 14-11-2003 depicting the general picture of the State including its economic failures and other attacks on the administration, which has resulted in non- function of the administration, on which basis the Governor of Andhra Pradesh while exercising powers under Article 174 of the constitution of India dissolved the Assembly. Thus learned counsel contended that failure of total administration is evident from the facts narrated in the resolution passed by the Cabinet of 14-11-2003 seeking dissolution of the Assembly and as such no further proof or material is required to the governor to send report to the President of india, on which basis a proclamation could have been issued by the President of India assuming the functions of the Government of the State. Learned counsel stated that the governor merely accepted the resolution of the State Cabinet and dissolved the assembly, however permitting the very same Cabinet to function till elections are held, which according to the learned counsel is not in good spirit of administration, and contended that time is ripe for taking over the state administration by invoking jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also stated from the grounds indicated in the resolution passed by the Cabinet though sufficient material was available before the Governor that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, instead of dissolving the assembly, it would have been appropriate a report could have been sent to the President of India for initiation of action as provided under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel drawing our attention to various infirmities pointed out in the resolution recorded by the Council of ministers about the killings and economic conditions prevailing in the State, stated that neither the Governor nor the Union Cabinet has acted in fairness and stated that the remedy available to the petitioner, who is canvassing for public cause, is only to bring to the notice of this Court about the failure on the part of the Governor as well as the union of the India and seeks appropriate direction to the 1st respondent-Union of india to exercise powers under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel, elaborating his arguments while referring the decision of the Supreme Court in s. R. Bommai v. Union of lndia, stated that the inaction of the 1st respondent-Union of india requires judicial interference by this court and seeks appropriate direction from this Court. ( 7 ) WE have heard learned Advocate general appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh and sri Suryakaran Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent-Union of india. ( 8 ) ADVERTING to the submissions made on behalf on the petitioners, learned Advocate general mainly contended that the situation is not so dark as depicted by the petitioner warranting interference by the President of india invoking jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. Learned advocate General stated that though full term of the Assembly is for a period of five years, which would expire by end of september/october, 2004, but in view of certain happenings in the State, the Cabinet has taken a decision to recommend for dissolution of the Assembly to seek a fresh mandate from the public, strengthening the hands of the Government to serve the State in a better way. Learned Advocate General also stated that when a direction is sought from this Court to the Union of India exploring the possibility of imposition of president s Rule under Article 356 of the constitution of India, grounds are to be made out and that the ground urged by the petitioner that there is total failure of administration in the State of Andhra pradesh is false and without any basis. Learned Advocate General drew our attention to the principles laid down by the supreme Court in Bommai s case (1 cited supra) and reminded the Court that no such situation exists in the State warranting invocation of Article 356 of the Constitution of India by the President and stated that a mandamus cannot be issued to the Union of india to act upon and take a decision in terms of Article 356 of the Constitution of india. Learned Advocate General also cited few decisions in support of his stand. ( 9 ) ON the basis of submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Union of India, the point that emerges for consideration is whether this court could act upon the request of the petitioner and issue a direction to the 1st respondent-Union of India for invoking powers under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, and if so whether any justifying reasons are made out before this Court for issuance of such direction? ( 10 ) FROM the facts of the case it is clear the Cabinet headed by the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh by resolution, dated 14-11-2003 resolved to recommend to the Governor for dissolution of the Assembly paving way of fresh elections in the State of andhra Pradesh. A copy of the said resolution, which was placed before the governor of Andhra Pradesh along with a letter addressed by the Chief Minister of andhra Pradesh, is placed before this Court for our benefit. ( 11 ) THE requirement of Articles 153 and 154 of the Constitution of India are, every state shall be headed by Governor who shall be vested with executive powers of the state. Articles 160 and 161 contained special functions to be discharged by the Governor in certain contingencies. ( 11 ) THE requirement of Articles 153 and 154 of the Constitution of India are, every state shall be headed by Governor who shall be vested with executive powers of the state. Articles 160 and 161 contained special functions to be discharged by the Governor in certain contingencies. Article 163 (1) provides that there shall be a council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as head to aid and advise Governor in exercise of his functions etc. The Chief minister shall head and preside the Council of Ministers. Article 164 provides that the chief Minister shall be appointed by the governor and other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister and the Ministers shall hold the office during the pleasure of the governor. Article 174 provides that the governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit etc. Article 174 (2) provides the Governor may from time to time (a) prorogue the House or either House; (b) dissolve the Legislative Assembly. ( 12 ) AS provided under Article 163 (1), the council of Ministers would aid and advise governor in exercise of his functions and on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, the Governor accepted the recommendation and dissolved the Assembly exercising powers under Article 174 (2) (b) of the Constitution of india on 14-11-2003. We may clarify here itself that the dissolution of the Assembly by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh is challenged before a Division Bench of this court in W. P. No. 24201 of 2003 and the learned Division bench felt that there is hardly a case for judicial interference in the action of the Governor and dismissed the writ petition by order, dated 27-11-2003. ( 13 ) PRESENTLY petitioner seeks a mandamus seeking a direction to the 1st respondent-Union of India to act and invoke its powers under Article 356 of the constitution of India and to issue such other directions. In order to appreciate various facets of submissions made, we may proceed to examine the provisions under article 356 of the Constitution of India. Article 356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in states. In order to appreciate various facets of submissions made, we may proceed to examine the provisions under article 356 of the Constitution of India. Article 356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in states. (1) If the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of a State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State, cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the president may by Proclamation- (a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State: (b) declare that the powers of the legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament: (c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this constitution relating to any body or authority in the State: provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the president to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part of the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to high Courts. (2) Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent proclamation. (2) Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent proclamation. (3) Every Proclamation under this article shall be laid before each house of Parliament and shall, except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by the resolutions of both houses of Parliament: Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the house of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the people first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People. (4) A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of issue of the proclamation: Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a proclamation is passed by both houses of Parliament, the proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of [six months from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to operate, but no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years: Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of six months and a resolution approving the continuance in force of such proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to the continuance in force of such proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the continuance in force of the proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People: provided also that in the case of the proclamation issued under C1. (1) of the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect of the State of Punjab, the reference in the first proviso to this clause to "three years" shall be construed as a reference to five years; (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in C1. (4), resolution with respect of the continuance in force of a proclamation approved under c1. (3) for any period beyond and expiration of one year from the date of issue of such Proclamation shall not be passed by either House of parliament unless- (a) a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, in the whole of India or, as the case may be in the whole or any part of the State, at the time of the passing of such resolution, and (b) the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under C1. (3) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the legislative Assembly of the state concerned: Provided that in the case of the Proclamation issued under Cl. (1) on the 6/10/1983, with respect to the State of Punjab, the reference in this clause to any period beyond the expiration of one year shall be construed as a reference to any period beyond the expiration of two years. Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the proclamation issued under cl. (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of punjab. ( 14 ) FROM the scheme of Article 356 two sources are contemplated for exercising powers under Article 356 of the Constitution of India by the President of India. The first source is a report from the Governor of the state and the other source as contemplated under Article 356 (1) is the information received from sources other than the governor s report, which would include union agencies, such as the report of some union Minister or the advice of the Union council of Ministers. In Bommai s case (1 supra) it has been held by majority, while exercising powers under Article 356 of the constitution of India, the President could act upon such report provided there is some material before the President on which basis the exercise could be made. It has also been held in the said case, whether the material was sufficient or not is not matter for judicial review, however, if on the basis of irrelevant material the President exercises power under Article 356, judicial review is available to the constitutional Courts. ( 15 ) ARTICLE 356 visualizes a situation one in the nature of breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State, which calls for abnormal remedy provided under Art. 356. The use of Article 356 can (sic. cannot) be made unless it is held that the Government cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. However, mere dissolution of the Assembly on the advice of the Council of Ministers cannot be a ground for invoking jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. ( 16 ) AS discussed by us, the facts on record are, the Assembly has been dissolved on 14-11-2003 on the advice of the Council of Ministers. However, mere dissolution of the Assembly on the advice of the Council of Ministers cannot be a ground for invoking jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. ( 16 ) AS discussed by us, the facts on record are, the Assembly has been dissolved on 14-11-2003 on the advice of the Council of Ministers. As the Governor is to be aided and advised in the exercise of his functions, Governor permits the Council of ministers to function till alternative arrangements are made even after dissolution of Assembly. Dissolution of the assembly by the Governor on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers cannot be a ground for invoking the jurisdiction under article 356 of the Constitution of India. In u. N. R. Rao v. Indira Gandhl, Supreme court held, dissolution of Assembly by the governor on the aid and advice of Council of ministers cannot be a ground for use of article 356 of the Constitution of India. Following the said view, in Arun Kumar Rai chaudhary v. Union of India and others? the allahabad High Court also held, mere dissolution of Assembly on the advice of the chief Minister is not a ground for use of article 356 of the Constitution of India. ( 17 ) ARTICLE 155 provides that the governor shall be appointed by the president of India by warrant under his hand and seal. The executive powers of the State vest in the Governor of the State. However, governor cannot exercise executive powers without the aid and advice of the Council of ministers, which is mandatory. Even after dissolution of the Assembly the Governor exercises executive powers on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers till alternative arrangements are made, if the assembly is dissolved before completion of its full term. ( 18 ) NOW it is to be examined on which basis the Presidential jurisdiction under article 356 of the Constitution of India is invoked. As discussed earlier there are two sources on which basis the President of india exercises jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution of India one being on a report from the Governor of respective State and the other being information received from sources other than the Governor s report, which would include report of some union Minister or the advice of the Union council of Ministers. In this case as indicated neither the Governor of Andhra Pradesh nor the Union Council of Ministers brought to the notice of the President of India that there has been breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State of Andhra Pradesh, which calls for an abnormal remedy available under article 356 of the Constitution of India. As discussed earlier, dissolution of the State assembly by the Governor was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in w. P. No. 24201 of 2003 and this Court dismissed the writ petition holding that untenable grounds are made out for upsetting the orders passed by the Governor under Article 174 (2) (b) of the Constitution of india. It means the Governor of Andhra pradesh was satisfied that no abnormal situation has arisen to send a report to the president of India for invoking jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. Nor there was any report from the other sources as visualized under Article 356 such as report from a Union Minister or any advice by the Union Council of Ministers to the president of India for invoking jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. ( 19 ) EXERCISE of power by the Governor under Article 174 (2) (b) on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as provided under Article 163 (1) could though be coloured as a political decision, in a system of democracy these instances do surface off and on, as long as desire to take over control of power by one party or the other is unabetted. Could Courts exercise power of judicial review of these instances ignoring the ground realities? Jurisdiction of the Courts cannot be invoked only to answer hypothetical proposition drawn on assumptions and presumptions. However, powers available to the constitutional Courts for judicial review is to be guardedly used in a given case depending upon factors of each case, particularly so when clamor for power is the sole agenda, Courts cannot lend assistance. Jurisdiction of the Courts cannot be invoked only to answer hypothetical proposition drawn on assumptions and presumptions. However, powers available to the constitutional Courts for judicial review is to be guardedly used in a given case depending upon factors of each case, particularly so when clamor for power is the sole agenda, Courts cannot lend assistance. ( 20 ) PETITIONER, a respected citizen of the state, though has made efforts to bring to the notice of the Court about the scenario emerging on the basis of facts and figures placed before us both on economic sphere as well as on administrative area leading to killings of several citizens and police personnel on different occasions right from 1996 onwards, we must say, seeking dissolution of Assembly before expiry of the term may be a game plan to get advantage, that itself cannot be a ground for invoking jurisdiction under Article 356 of the constitution. Clamor for political power is such that it may be x or "y party, gaining or losing, however, these factors form part in the system of democracy and as such grounds seeking dissolution of State assembly urged by the Council of Ministers cannot be a reason for the use of Article 356. ( 21 ) ARTICLE 356 of the Constitution requires the Governor of the State to send up a report to the President for appropriate action. The Governor though acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers as provided under Article 163 (1) of the constitution, in our considered view, the governor can act on the advice of the council of Ministers only in exercising the executive powers, but cannot seek advice of the Council of Ministers for sending a report to the President for exercising jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. If that is done it shall be like signing a death warrant by the Cabinet. It may be true, in order to derive political benefit out of incident of attack on the Chief Minister by extremists, the Council of Ministers might have advised the Governor to dissolve the Assembly prior to expiry of the full term, that itself cannot be a ground to say reasons assigned in the resolution passed seeking dissolution of the assembly is sufficient for issuance of direction to the 1st respondent to act. Political tug of war is an inbuilt facet akin to the system of democratic rule as political groups try to have an upper hand on others to achieve their political objectives on the basis of an event, which they may believe could be handy for gaining/retention of power. ( 22 ) AS already discussed, neither the governor has thought circumstances are such which require exercise of powers under article 356 of the Constitution of India by the president of India and send a report, nor the other agency has reported to the President that the situation warrants action by the president under Article 356 of the constitution of India. In that view of the matter it is difficult for us to appreciate that the resolution passed by the Cabinet giving reasons for dissolution of the Assembly could be a ground for this Court to issue a direction to the 1st respondent to act upon and invoke jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. Though Assembly has been dissolved and elections are stated to be held in near future subject to issuance of notification by the Election Commission of india, we do not think, on the basis of material placed, there is breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State of andhra Pradesh, which calls for an abnormal remedy of invoking jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution of India by the President. We may add in a contingency of this nature i. e. , when the assembly itself is dissolved with an intention to seek fresh mandate from the people and elections are likely to be held in near future, this Court cannot issue such a direction as sought for by the petitioner. Though we appreciate the effort made by the petitioner through the present writ petition canvassing public cause, on the material placed before us and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot agree with the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the 1 st respondent- union of India for exercising powers under article 356 of the Constitution of India. ( 23 ) FOR all the reasons, we do not find any merits in the writ petition and accordingly dismiss the same. However, there shall be no order as to costs.