Judgment : Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. This application has been taken out asking for declaration that Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013 which Union Government of India placed before President of India and in turn referred to the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature cannot be construed as Bill, which is in violation of Provisions of Article 3 of Constitution of India and is also in violation of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha and in Lok Sabha. In order to get relief, the petitioner stated Bill prepared by Central Government and referred to the State Legislature is not prepared as per requirement of Article 3 of Constitution of India and relevant Rules. 2. Sri S.R. Ashok and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, have submitted and expressed their valued opinions as Amicus Curiae that this writ petition is absolutely premature. Sri S.R. Ashok says that a prayer for mere declaratory relief cannot be entertained unless a consequential relief is asked for. Sri D. Prakash Reddy says that the approach of the petitioner is to examine the legality and validity of the proposed bill of bifurcation. He inviting our attention to Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution of India, submits that this aspect is within the exclusive domain of both the Houses of Parliament, and the State Legislature and the method and procedure regarding presentation of the bifurcation bill and, for that matter, preparation of the bill cannot be called in question before Court of law. He contends that whatever is agitated in this application to achieve above relief, Centre and State Legislatures are exclusive authorities, not the Court, to decide the issue. 3. We therefore set out the aforesaid Articles for ready reference. “Article 122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.— (1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. (2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.” “Article 212. (2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.” “Article 212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature.— (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. (2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.” The language of the aforesaid Articles is clear to support what Sri D. Prakash Reddy says. Function in Article 3 is exclusively legislative one. It is regulated by its own procedure, no Court can interfere unless clear violation of provision of Constitution is established, as Courts’ function cannot be called into question by the legislature because it is governed by its own legally established procedure. 4. We therefore think that the issue raised by the petitioner will certainly be taken care of by the appropriate Legislature. Whether the bill is properly drafted or not or, for that matter, whether the procedure adopted by the concerned Ministry in introducing the bill is lawful or not, can be examined by Legislatures in the floor of the House. Obviously when such a bill is introduced, any Member of Parliament or of the Assembly will scrutinise and point out illegality or irregularity and then decision will be taken by them. 5. We have taken note of the contention of the petitioner who appears to be well sensitised to the working system of constitutional democracy. His concern is only to see that if bifurcation is made, it must be done in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Appreciating his anxiety, we think that this is not the stage for scrutiny by the Court. His concern is only to see that if bifurcation is made, it must be done in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Appreciating his anxiety, we think that this is not the stage for scrutiny by the Court. On careful examination, we think that the role of Court may come much later, if the situation so warrants, only on established judicial principles and not otherwise, namely, whether the decision making process is in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Taking note of the prayer of the petitioner, we hold that this action of the petitioner is absolutely premature. On that ground, we close the writ petition. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs. 6. This Court records its appreciation of the service rendered by Sri S.R. Ashok and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, as Amicus Curiae.