MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT LACUNAE ABUSE OF POWER AN ANALYSIS AND SUGGESTIONS
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a men’s character, give him power.” Said Abraham Lincoln This aptly applies to the Managing Committee of a society. Once the power comes neighbor becomes your Master. There are many incidents where the committee manipulates bills and contracts, and even in redevelopment cases three honorary office bearers Secretary, Chairman, and Treasurer have weightage in the finalization of the deal. We see litigations and stalling of projects of a housing society. Human tendency is such that they think of self-gain, instead of taking care and executing responsibilities that they have taken with utmost care and truthfulness. Corrupt minds see financial benefits in every deal. They forget that while doing this they prejudice the property and interests of other flat members. Election: 1 With the new election rules, an election is held similarly to the way in which how elections are held in any Assembly and Parliament. Cartel is formed and elections are won. It has killed the neighborhood’s love, respect, and honor. One family and one flat provision are also violated royally. Even if distant relatives or cousins have a cartel. This creates a monopoly in management. Suggestion: Like Multi Co-operative society, provide that same member or any other joint member from one flat cannot contest the consecutive election. The flat owners/member must take a break or drop out from the next election to give an opportunity to other flat owners/members. So, after serving for 5 years the said member/flat owner cannot contest election for immediate subsequent another term. This will reduce the monopoly of a few flat owners and their families, and their friends. For the convenience of the readers and lawmakers reproduced below is the provision of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act,2002 below which restricts reelection after two terms. Prohibition to hold the office of chairperson or president or vice chairperson or vice president in certain cases (1) No member of a board shall be eligible to be elected as the chairperson or president or vice-chairperson or vice-president of a multi-state cooperative society if such member is a Minister in the Central Government or a State Government. (2) No member of a board shall be eligible to be elected as the chairperson or president of a multi-state cooperative society, after he has held the office as such during two consecutive terms, whether full or part: Provided that a member who has ceased to hold the office of the chairperson or president continuously for one full term shall again be eligible for election to the office as such. Explanation:- where any member holding the office of the chairperson or president at the commencement of this Act is against elected to that office after such commencement, he shall for the purpose of this section, be deemed to have held office for one term before such election. Proposed Suggestion : A similar principle must be applied to the housing society. A.2 A Managing Committee was disqualified for 5 years, and an administrator was appointed. Managing Committee manages to suppress the facts from members of the society and manages that the […]
Read more
LAW GOVERNING DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
MARRIAGES ARE DECIDED IN HEAVEN BUT LIVED ON EARTH Introduction: Couples are so eager to get married but are not ready to accept duties and responsibilities. The problem starts from here. Marriage is the foundation of a healthy society. A fractured family gives a fractured and weak society. It gives an insecure future to the nation. Families spend lakhs and crores on the wedding with branded dresses, pre-wedding shoots, food, and ornaments but don’t focus on the spiritual and social aspects of marriage. So once the film of a wedding is over, couples enter the world of reality and find it difficult to manage their relationship with each other and with other family members. From divorce they give an insecure future to their kid if any, and to themselves. Their family members too. As laws in India are such people avoid staying together in fear of criminal prosecution, which is evidently misused in the majority of cases on advice to get divorce and alimony. As per data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in the report Crime in India 2020 about 5% of the cases under Section 498A were found to be false. The outcome is couples prefer to leave the country and settle abroad and seniors land in old age homes. These are serious dangers to society. So, should divorce by Mutual Consent be instant? Should six months cooling period be waived? If Yes, on what terms? If No, then why? The issue involved: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will start hearing on 28th September, to consider the extent of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950, to dissolve the marriage. The 5-Judge Bench headed by Justice S.K. Kaul and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari was of the opinion that the real issue is the exercise of power under Article 142 when there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, but one party is not consenting to divorce. Shilpa Shailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan The Constitution Bench reference originates from a Transfer petition, wherein pursuant to the settlement, the parties had sought appropriate order of the Court to dissolve their marriage, and the same was granted by the Apex Court on the following grounds – there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage between the parties; the parties are consenting to divorce; requiring the parties to go to the jurisdictional family court to invoke the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to seek a decree of divorce would be a lengthy process and that, the Family Courts in the country are already burdened with a huge volume of similar litigation. Dictum: Man is a social animal. He cannot live in isolation. To carry forward the human race a sacred institution is created by the name of marriage to have progeny. Who will continue the family tradition, language, dialect, culture, food habits, etcetera. In Hindus, marriage is a sacred institution and not contractual. It carries the sanctity of an institution namely marriage. What is important is to carry forward the family legacy too. Divorce was an […]
Read more
CAN SOCIETY REFUSE TO TRANSFER A FLAT ON AN UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT?
CAUTIONARY The Committee of Society should not use the law for harassment but for betterment. We have a question before us. Let us analyze There was a leading case of Kalpita Enclave vs Kiran Builders. This was under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act,1963. In this case, two flat purchasers had filed suit under Section 7 of said MOFA, which was objected by the builders. Subsequently, MOFA Section 4 was amended and 4A was inserted. 1[4A Where an agreement for sale entered into under sub-section (1) of Effect of section 4, whether entered into before or after the commencement of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, registration sale, Management and transfer) (Amendment and Validating Provisions) Act 1983, remains unregistered for any reason, then notwithstanding anything required to contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree be or order of any Court, it may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit registered for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, or of as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence of any collateral 1882. transaction not required to be affected by registered instrument.]. Subsequently, Maharashtra Textile and Co-operation Ministry came out with a Circular dated 16th October 1991 not to effect transfer by the Society till Stamp Duty and Registration charges are paid. However the unregistered document is not invalid and can be received in evidence as per Section 4A of the MOFA Act,1963. The market value concept came into force on 1st January 1986 and all documents prior thereto are out of the purview of the market value. Concluding Remarks: In current times society is bound to transfer flat upon payment of stamp duty and registration charges. But old documents are out of the scope of the valuation. Documents which are executed up to 31st December 1985 are not liable for market value. Even documents prior to 1986 and subsequent which is unregistered are not invalidated by their non-registration. SHRUTI DESAI 7th September,2022
Read more
CAN THE COURT RESTRAIN THE ELECTION COMMISSION TO DISCHARGE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES WHEN THE HEARING OF THE MATTER IS NOT OVER? DOES IT AMOUNT TO ENCROACHMENT IN THE TERRITORY OF AN INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL BODY? MAHARASHTRA SHIV SENA SPLIT AND CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH
“Of course, inasmuch as the power of altering every feature of the Constitution remains elsewhere politically, the Constitution is neither the ultimate ‘‘political’’ sovereign nor a legally unalterable and absolute sovereign. All constitutional and ‘‘legal’’ sovereigns are necessarily restrained and limited sovereigns. I thought and still think that such a working theory should be acceptable to lawyers, particularly as the dignitaries of State, including Judges of superior Courts, and all the legislators, who have to take oaths prescribed by the Third Schedule of our Constitution, swear ‘‘allegiance’’ to the Constitution as though the documents itself is a personal Ruler. This accords with our own ancient notions of the law as ‘‘The King of Kings’’ and the majesty of all that it stands for: The Rightfulness of the Ends as well as of the means.” Kesvananda Bharti’s case (AIR 1973 SC 1461) The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to a Constitution Bench the petitions filed by the rival groups of Shiv Sena in relation to the political development in State of Maharashtra. This is Breaking News today. Several questions are before Supreme Court which will now constitute five Judges Bench. I will not touch the same. But can Court by its order restrain any constitutional independent body from discharging its function under the constitution for which it is constituted? First, let us see relevant provisions. Part XV of the Constitution provides for elections. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission.—(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution 1*** shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission). (2) The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President. (3) When any other Election Commissioner is so appointed the Chief Election Commissioner shall act as the Chairman of the Election Commission. (4) Before each general election to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of each State, and before the first general election and thereafter before each biennial election to the Legislative Council of each State having such Council, the President may also appoint after consultation with the Election Commission such Regional Commissioners as he may consider necessary to assist the Election Commission in the performance of the functions conferred on the Commission by clause (1). (5) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the Election Commissioners and the Regional Commissioners shall be such as the President may by rule determine: Provided that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the […]
Read more
Automated Cars, Electric Cars, Accident and Liability: Indian Laws
Autopilot aeroplane, the autopilot engine pulls the entire train. Surprising isn’t it! No human as a driver yet it flies, runs on the track, and even flies. Yes, with artificial intelligence this is possible. It’s already implemented. But today we will discuss only automated cars. Laws governing it and the liability in case of an accident. Tesla is likely to hit the roads in India. It’s an automated car. When it’s going to be part of our normal life, we must know what provisions of the law will be applicable to the crimes. In general Motor Vehicle Act, of 1988 is applicable to vehicles, licenses, crimes, accidents, etc. relating to vehicles on roads. We will limit today’s discussion to the area of accidents by self-driven automated cars. What are the laws which govern accidents by automated cars? First, we will see legal provisions under the Indian Penal code: Accident in doing a lawful act.—Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. Illustration A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence. Section 279 in The Indian Penal CodeRash driving or riding on a public way.—Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Is offence cognizable under S279? The offence punishable under section 279 of IPC is a cognizable offence where the police have a right to arrest a person for an offence without a warrant, but such offences are bailable in nature and are triable by the Magistrate who is having the authority over the area wherein such offence has been committed. Now, what happens when an automated car meets with an accident? India: Motor Vehicle Act 1988 does not provide for an automated car. However, Section 2(9) says “driver” includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is drawn by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the drawn vehicle. It means the person on the steering wheel is a driver and is an inclusive definition. But there is no provision for automated drivers. What is the difference between a vehicle and a motor vehicle? Vehicle means an Eligible Vehicle purchased by You being the vehicle specified on the certificate of insurance. Motor Vehicles means motor vehicles, tractors, trailers and other like property, whether or not the title thereto is governed by a certificate of title or ownership but does not include any vehicle or car operated on a rail or rails wither on or off […]
Read more
GOVERNOR’S POWER TO CALL A SPECIAL ASSEMBLY MEETING FOR A FLOOR TEST : Case Study Maharashtra Crisis:
Before going for a detailed discussion let us see Constitutional Provision related to the Governor in calling a Floor Test Article 174: Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation, and dissolution (1) 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, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session (2) The Governor may from time to time (a) Prorogue the House or either House; (b) dissolve the Legislative Assembly Right of the Governor to address and send messages to the House or Houses (1) The Governor may address the Legislative Assembly or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, either House of the Legislature of the State, or both Houses assembled together, and may for that purpose require the attendance of members (2) The Governor may sent messages to the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State, whether with respect to a Bill then pending in the Legislature or otherwise, and a House to which any message is so sent shall with all convenient dispatch consider any matter required by the message to be taken into consideration Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor (1) There shall be a council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion (2) If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion (3) The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court Note : Article 174 of the Constitution authorizes the Governor to summon, dissolve and prorogue the state legislative assembly. Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution gives powers to the Governor to dissolve the Assembly on the aid and advice of the cabinet. The Governor can implement his own discretion when the advice comes from a Chief Minister whose majority could be in doubt. Under Article 175(2), the Governor can summon the House and call for a floor test to prove whether the government has the numbers. Though the Governor can exercise the above only as per Article 163 of the Constitution which says that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister. When the House is in session, it is the Speaker who can call for a floor test. But when the Assembly is not in […]
Read more
CAN THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY COMMITTEE BLOCK ACCESS TO THE COMMON TERRACE?
This is a very common dispute. Most of the time Committee decides on whims and fancies. Which is not permissible. If any untoward incident like a fire happens Managing Committee shall be liable for culpability. To start the discussion first we must know the provisions of Byelaws. When Terrace is a common area as per the official plan and agreement with promoter builders it’s a joint and several ownerships. Every society especially as we are discussing housing society is governed by Model Byelaws. They are framed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act,1960 which is a Central Act. Now let us see the provisions of the model bye-laws. 3 xxi. “Open terraces” means terraces which are otherwise not in the exclusive possession of any of the Members. 3 xxii “Common Areas and Facilities” means a.the land on which the building is located; b. the foundations, columns, girders, beams, supports, main walls,roofs, halls, corridors, lobbies, stair-ways, lifts / escalators , fire escapes and entrances and exits of the building; c. the basements, cellars, yards, gardens, parking areas undemarcated / demarcated parking slots, and storage spaces; d. the premises for the lodging of janitors or persons employed for the management of the property; e. installations of central services such as power, light, gas, water storage and water heating, water harvesting, pump houses, refrigeration, air conditioning, generators, roof top solar devices, common antennas and mass communication and data sharing devices, f.the elevators, tanks, pumps, motors, fans, compressors, ducts and in general all apparatus and installations existing for common use; g. such community and commercial facilities as may have been provided for; h. all other parts of the property necessary or convenient to its existence, maintenance and safety or normally in common use; Under Bylaw 67 (a) (xiv) members are paying for the maintenance of the terrace being a common facility. What society can do is to, regulate permission to use for functions under bye-law 168. Now moving further a law has been passed in Maharashtra namely the Prevention of Fire and Life Safety Measure Act,2016. Under this law, it’s the owner’s responsibility to keep up fire safety measures. In a matter before the division bench Once a person agrees to the sale/ purchase of a floor in a property, they bind themselves to joint access to common areas, its use, and enjoyment by way of such an agreement. Any obstruction caused that results in deprivation of essential amenities that are water, electricity etc. cannot be permitted and requires immediate intervention to rectify the situation as they have a direct bearing on the right to life of a human” All residents must have access to common areas’ | Delhi News – Times of India (indiatimes.com) In yet another case of Tasneem Dhariwala Bombay High Court Division Bench of Justice S.C Dhamadhikari and Justice Gautam Patel in identical facts held, Such parties cannot be given any discretionary and equitable relief, much less [allowed] to obstruct a public body from performing the statutory duties and ensuring that there is free access to all persons to an area called terrace and, particularly, to take care […]
Read more
GYAN VAPI AND TEMPLES APPLICABILITY OF “PLACES OF WORSHIP LAW- 1991” –DISCUSSION
MEANING OF GYAN VAPI: This was derived from the name of an adjoining waterbody — Gyan Vapi (“Well of Knowledge”) — which was a sacred site in itself and, in all likelihood, predated the Vishweshwar temple. CAUSE FOR THIS DISCUSSION: CONTEMPORARY CIRCUMSTANCES In the year 1991 parliament passed a law namely an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August 1947 and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This Act is currently a topic of hot discussion. The incident which brought this law into the public domain is a suit order by Senior Division Civil Court Varanasi in which one Sohanlal Arya has claimed that Gyan Vapi Mosque is the temple. The said temple structure was partially demolished as per orders of the then Mughal ruler Aurangzeb. By an order Civil court carried out the survey in the meantime Muslim community leaders approached the Supreme Court to seek a stay of the proceedings before the Varanasi court. The Supreme Court has granted a stay and is now hearing the matter. The Supreme Court has also by its order transferred the suit to Varanasi Court District Judge. BRUTAL HISTORY OF INVASION, CONVERSION, AND DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES IN INDIA : Indian history is full of conflict, invasion, and bloodshed. Hindus had to face atrocities at the hands of invaders. India was invaded by many foreign forces and two large invaders are the Mughals and Britishers. Aurangzeb was a cruel Mughal dynast, and he ordered for demolishing of temples. They converted Hindus to Islam by force. This painful, harsh, brutal, unkind history of this land cannot be erased, forgotten, and denied. Below is a map of the Mughal Empire: Antecedents and history: General Order of the destruction of Temples: 9th April 1669 One of the main objectives of Aurangzeb’s policy was to demolish Hindu temples. When he ordered (13th October 1666) removal of the carved railing, which Prince Dara Shukoh had presented to Keshava Rai temple at Mathura, he had observed ‘In the religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a temple’, and that it was totally unbecoming of a Muslim to act like Dara Shukoh (Exhibit No. 6, Akhbarat, 13th October 1666). This was followed by destruction of the famous Kalka temple in Delhi (Exhibit No. 6, 7, 8, Akhbarat, 3rd and 12th September 1667). In 1669, shortly after the death of Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber, a general order was issued (9th April 1669) for the demolition of temples and established schools of the Hindus throughout the empire and banning public worship (Exhibit Nos. 9 & 10). Soon after this the great temple of Keshava Rai was destroyed (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Exhibit No. 12) and in its place a lofty mosque was erected. The idols, the author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri informs, were carried to Agra and buried under the steps of the mosque built by Begum Sahiba in order to be continually trodden upon, and the name of […]
Read more
“SECULARISM” IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION – A CONTROVERSIAL ZONE
The Preamble was used by Supreme Court as an aid to construction in Behram Khurshed Pasikaka v. The State of Bombay [1955] 1 S.C.R. 613 at p. 653. After referring to Part III, Mahajan, C.J., observed: We think that the rights described as fundamental rights are a necessary consequence of the declaration in the preamble that the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens’ justice, social, economic, and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship; equality of status and of opportunity. These fundamental rights have not been put in the Constitution merely for individual benefits, though ultimately, they come into operation in considering individual rights. They have been put there as a matter of public policy and the doctrine of waiver can have no application to provisions of law which have been enacted as a matter of Constitutional policy. Is the Preamble part of our Constitution? This was decided in the matter of Berubari In Re: The Berubari Union And vs Unknown on 14 March 1960 Equivalent citations: AIR 1960 SC 845, 1960 3 SCR 250 There is no doubt that the declaration made by the people of India in the exercise of their sovereign will in the preamble to the Constitution is, in the words of Story, “a key to open the mind of the makers” which may show the general purposes for which they made the several provisions in the Constitution; but nevertheless the preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and, as Willoughby has observed about the preamble to the American Constitution, “it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted”. In S.R.Bommai vs Union of India: It was held in this landmark judgment that : Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution. While freedom of religion is guaranteed to all persons in India, from the point of view of the State, the religion, faith, or belief of a person is immaterial. To the State, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally. In matters of State, religion has no place. No political party can simultaneously be a religious party. Politics and religion cannot be mixed. Any State Government which pursues unsecular policies or unsecular course of action acts contrary to the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356. Note: This feature of secularism was rejected by the Constituent Assembly ( Drafting of Constitution Committee) on 6th December 1948. Bommai ( Supra) is said to be a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court on Article 356, it is true that Secularism is guaranteed as a fundamental right, but the word “Secularism” was never there in the Preamble of the Constitution of India 1949 and the insertion thereof was refused and negatived by the Constituent Assembly. Below is the link to the […]
Read more
WHEN THE LAW-AND-ORDER SITUATION IS SCRAMBLED CAN ASSEMBLY BE DISSOLVED? CAN THE PRESIDENT ORDER FOR A FRESH ELECTION? LANDMARK CASES
Part XVIII of the constitution deals with such a situation that arises in the state of India. Let’s first read those provisions: Duration of State Legislatures.—(1) Every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of [five years] shall operate as a dissolution of the Assembly: Provided that the said period may, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, be extended by Parliament by law for a period not exceeding one year at a time and not extending in any case beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate. (2) The Legislative Council of a State shall not be subject to dissolution, but as nearly as possible one-third of the members thereof shall retire as soon as may be on the expiration of every second year in accordance with the provisions made in that behalf by Parliament by law. Article 174(2) (2) The Governor may from time to time (a) Prorogue the House or either House; (b) dissolve the Legislative Assembly Article 355: Duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance.—It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. Dictum: Naga Peoples Movement vs Union of India Reference in this context may be made to Article 355 of the Constitution whereunder a duty has been imposed on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. In view of the said provision, the Union Government is under an obligation to take steps to deal with a situation of internal disturbance in a State. There can be a situation arising out of internal disturbance which may justify the issuance of a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution enabling the President to assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State. That would depend on the gravity of the situation arising on account of such internal disturbance and on the President being satisfied that a situation has arisen where the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with provisions of the Constitution. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State: (1) If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the 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 be 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 anybody or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State; (b) declare that […]
Read more