Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975:  s.5(1), 5(3) - Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 -Respondent no.2 was appointed as a Lokayukta under 1975 Act - The term of respondent no.2 expired on 15.03.2012 after the completion of the period of six years under the provisions of sub-section (1) of s.5 - The ,  Amendment Act 2012 was enacted and the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta was increased from six years to eight years or till his successor enters upon his office - Writ petition challenging continuance of respondent no. 2 as Lokayukta after 15.03.2012 - Held: The materials placed clearly showed that the Amendment Act 2012 was enacted by a competent legislature with legislative intent to provide a term of eight years to Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta, whether present or future, to ensure effective implementation of the Act - The said extension of the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta  from six years to eight years is a matter of legislative policy and it cannot be narrowed down by saying that the same was enacted only for the benefit of respondent no. 2 - Thus, respondent No. 2 duly held the office of Lokayukta under a valid law enacted by the competent legislature - However, the State is directed to take all endeavors for selecting the new incumbent for the office of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas as per the provisions of the Act.

Legislation: Bill - Writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 on the ground that the Bill that led to the enactment of the Amendment Act 2012 was passed as a Money Bill in violation of Articles 197 and 198 of the Constitution of India which should have been passed by both the Houses, viz. UP. Legislative Assembly and UP Legislative Council and was wrongly passed only by the UP. Legislative Assembly - Held: Question whether a Bill is Money Bill or not can be raised only in State Legislature Assembly by member thereof when Bill is pending in State Legislature and before it becomes an Act - There is no rule that if Bill in an Original Act was not Money Bill no subsequent Bill for amendment of original Act can be Money Bill - Even in case of infirmity in procedure in enactment of a statute, matter of procedure do not render the statute invalid to which assent is given by the President or Governor, as the case may be.

Administrative law: Judicial review - Proceedings of State Legislature and decision of Speaker - Scope of Judicial review - Discussed.

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 212 - Decision of Speaker - Held: If the Speaker of Legislature Assembly decides that the Bill in question is Money Bill then such decision cannot be disputed nor such procedure of State Legislature be questioned.