Legislative policy and mootness barred relief: courts cannot compel statutory amendment, and the expired term left no effective remedy.

Because the mayoral term had already expired, no practical relief survived and the challenge became infructuous. The Court also held that a direction to amend the municipal law to bar simultaneous holding of offices lies within legislative policy and the sovereign domain of the Legislature. A court cannot compel the Legislature to enact a particular law, nor issue mandamus requiring a specific legislative amendment. The proceeding therefore ended without enforceable relief, and no judicial order could be made to mandate statutory change.

---

---

Issues: Whether a court can direct the Legislature to amend the municipal law so as to bar simultaneous holding of the offices of Member of the Legislative Assembly and Mayor, and whether any effective relief survived in view of the expiry of the mayoral term.

Analysis: The term of the elected Mayor had already expired, so no practical relief could be granted. On the request for a direction to amend the law, the Court held that such a matter lies within legislative policy and falls within the sovereign domain of the Legislature. A court cannot compel the Legislature to enact a particular law, nor can it issue a mandamus to require enactment of a specific legislative measure.

Conclusion: No direction could be issued to amend the statute, and the challenge had become infructuous because the term of office had ended.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended in dismissal, with no enforceable relief available and no judicial power to mandate legislative amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts cannot direct the Legislature to enact a particular law, as legislative choice lies within the sovereign function of the elected law-making body.

---