Judgment : V. Eswaraiah, J. 1. The petitioner is an advocate. He filed the present public interest litigation case to declare the action of the first respondent i.e. Hon’ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh in not framing the rules to curtail or avert unnecessary bye-elections to the assembly under para-8(1)(d) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India basing on the entire record/material and the disqualification petition dated 13.06.2012 filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 2. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted what he calls a disqualification petition dated 13.06.2012 before the Hon’ble Speaker seeking the following reliefs. (i) In the above circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Speaker may be pleased to keep the resignations of respondent nos.2 and 3 or any further resignations of Members of Legislative Assembly in abeyance till the framing of the Rules pertaining to the disqualification under defection/intentional resignations for their selfish political gains and to curtail the multiple elections/ bye elections and to avoid burden on the exchequer, pending disposal of the disqualification petition and pass such other order or orders in the larger interest of the Nation and exchequer of the public. (ii) In the above circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Speaker may be pleased to declare the 2nd highest votes secured contesting candidate as winning candidate to avoid the bye election burden on the public as well as on the Government, pending disposal of the disqualification petition and pass such other order or orders in the larger interest of the Nation and to save the public money. (iii) In the above circumstances, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Speaker may be pleased to direct the contesting candidates that they should give an undertaking to the effect that they will not resign until the House is dissolved or completion of the term of House if they are elected and they will not cause further burden to the Nation, pending disposal of the disqualification petition and pass such other order or orders in the larger interest of the national and to save the public money. 3. 3. A perusal of the petitioner’s entire affidavit would show that Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) especially in our State are often resorting to resignations from their seats for their own political and popularity reasons and are again contesting from the same seats in the bye-elections resulting in huge expenditure to the State for conducting the bye-election. It is also stated by him that several MLAs are careful enough to resign their seats ensuring that in the process they do not lose their pensions or other benefits and it is also his version that resignations are made on frivolous reasons according to their whims and fancies and this should be prevented. 4. The petitioner has also stated that the Speaker should take steps to prevent the above resignations and forceful bye-elections and therefore he should frame rules for such prevention under para-8 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India which deals with defection. It is also his plea that several MLAs are also resorting to defections and that should also be prevented by such rules. In this connection the petitioner says that in his petition dated 13.06.2010 he also sought for disqualification of respondents 2 and 3 in this PIL case. The various other pleas taken by the petitioner regarding unnecessary bye-elections are all mentioned in his petition dated 13.06.2006 submitted to the Speaker and also in his affidavit filed in support of this PIL case. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the Speaker has not taken any decision he has to come up with this PIL case. 5. Regarding resignations of MLAs i.e. Members of State Legislatures, Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution which deals with vacation of seats contains a provision for the same and it reads as follows. “190. Vacation of seats.-- (1) ……… (2) ……… (3) If a member of a House of the Legislature of a State-- (a) ……….. (b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, his seat shall thereupon becomes vacant. (b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, his seat shall thereupon becomes vacant. Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation. (4) ……….” 6. Thus so far as resignations by MLAs are concerned that is covered by the above provision in the Constitution and the Speaker is given the power to hold an enquiry to find out whether the resignation given by an MLA is voluntary and genuine and if it is not voluntary or genuine the Speaker can refuse to accept the same. Thus so far as resignations are concerned it is a volitional act on the part of the MLA and the discretion is given to the Speaker either to accept it or not to accept it and nothing is brought to our notice to show that this provision mandates framing of any rules by the Speaker or this court can give any such direction for framing of rules. 7. Then coming to disqualifications of the Members of State Legislatures, they are provided for in Article 191 of the Constitution which reads as follows. “191. Disqualifications for membership.-- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State-- (a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder; (b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; (c) if he is an undischarged insolvent; (d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State; (e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. Explanation.---For the purposes of this clause, a person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule by reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State. (2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule. 8. These disqualifications are also again stated in Sections 7 to 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is not necessary to go into the same. What should be noted is an MLA stands disqualified for being a Member of the either House of a State Legislature if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. 9. It may be noted that the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution deals with defections and it starts with the heading “Provisions as to Disqualification on Ground of Defection”. A perusal of the Tenth Schedule would show that it contains detailed provisions as to what constitutes defection and how the Speaker can deal with them. Para-8(1)(d) of the said Tenth Schedule say that the Speaker can by rules provide for procedure to decide whether an MLA or MLC is guilty of defection and for adjudicating that aspect what procedure he should follow. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the State Legislature has stated that separate rules have been framed under para-8(1)(d) of the Tenth Schedule regarding the procedure to be followed for deciding complaints about defections and they have been framed way back in the year 1986 with the title “Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986”. The fact that such rules have been framed is also evident from a copy of the proceedings in Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2011 of the Hon’ble Speaker filed by the petitioner himself in his material papers enclosed to this PIL case. Thus it cannot be said that the Speaker has not framed any such rules under the said para-8(1)(d). So far as the contention of the petitioner that the Speaker has to frame rules under para-8(1)(d) to prevent unnecessary resignations, the said provision does not provide for framing of such rules as the Tenth Schedule deals with only defections. Hence that relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the Speaker has to frame rules under para-8(1)(d) to prevent unnecessary resignations, the said provision does not provide for framing of such rules as the Tenth Schedule deals with only defections. Hence that relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. 11. Then turning to the case of the petitioner that unnecessary bye-elections should be prevented which are resulting in avoidable expenditure to the State, it may be noted that Article 190 provides for resignations. The forum for debating this issue is not this court but the Legislative Assembly itself. This apart, the learned counsel for the State Legislature has even stated that separate rules have been framed with regard to acceptance of resignations under Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution. The petitioner has not raised any contentions with regard to the adequacy or otherwise of such existing rules relating to acceptance of resignations which operate in a different field. Further as the whole grievance of the petitioner is with regard to framing of rules under para-8(1)(d) of the Tenth Schedule which deals with defections and have already been framed and are existing, it follows that no relief can be granted to him. 12. In view of the above, there are no merits in this PIL case and the same is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.