By Ranju Kafle Kathmandu, Jan. 25: Justice Sapana Malla Pradhan, during the hearing on House dissolution writs on Sunday, asked the advocates how the House dissolution by the Prime Minister was ill-intended. The Justice had asked the question because it was frequently claimed that the Prime Minister had ill-intention while dissolving the House of Representatives on December 20 last year. "Can a government formed under the Article 76 (I) dissolve the House,” she asked, adding that the Prime Minister maintained that he could not run the government because the party did not cooperate with him, and he was compelled to ask for fresh mandate as he had no options left. “How does this statement of the Prime Minister reflect ill-intension?" she asked. But the advocates argued that it was ill-intended because no alternatives was sought for the formation of new government. "The context chosen to dissolve the House was inappropriate," Advocate Meghraj Pokharel said. He said that the Prime Minister should be accountable to the Constitution and its provisions. However, the advocate agreed that the Prime Minister could dissolve the House if an unnatural situation arose in the country. Pokharel was pleading on behalf of petitioner Dev Prasad Gurung in the apex court. Similarly, advocate Birendra Thakur argued which provision of the Constitution obstructed the Prime Minister from performing. "The Prime Minister appointed under article 76(I) with majority votes has no rights to ask for a fresh mandate," he said. Thakur said the Prime Minister had no right to dissolve the House; what he did was ill-intended. Another Advocate Kiyohang Rai argued that the Prime Minister had no right to nullify the House. "The unconstitutional move upset checks and balances," he added. According to him, no state head can disturb the constitutional matter. Rai demanded for the restoration of the House and said that Prime Minister should face no confidence motion in the House. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court is hearing on 13 writ petitions filed against the dissolution of the House of Representatives (HoR). Seven advocates pleaded on behalf of the petitioners today. And the hearing entered in seventh writ petition. About 100 advocates are waiting for pleading on the seventh writ petition. Meanwhile, dispute occurred among the advocates regarding the authenticity of the Nepal Gazette today. Advocate Raman Kumar Shrestha demanded time to speak on the authenticity of the document. However, Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana refused to give him time. Nepal Bar Association has opposed the statement of the Prime Minister about an elderly advocate.