Okay, I understand. Here's a summary based on the provided information about Article 112(2) in the Constitution of India, formatted as requested. Note that the provided information is extremely limited, so this summary will be necessarily brief and based on general knowledge of the Indian Constitution. A real case summary would require significantly more details.

Short Summary

This "case" concerns the interpretation and application of Article 112(2) of the Constitution of India, which deals with the estimates of expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. There is no specific "holding" as this is a constitutional provision, not a court case. The "case" likely involves a dispute over the classification of expenditure as "charged" versus "made" upon the Consolidated Fund.

Facts

The "facts" are not provided in the prompt. Hypothetically, a dispute might arise where the government seeks to classify a particular expenditure as "charged" on the Consolidated Fund, while the opposition argues it should be subject to a vote of the Parliament. The date provided, January 26, 1950, is the date the Constitution came into effect, not a case date.

Issues

The primary legal issue is the proper interpretation of Article 112(2) and whether a particular expenditure qualifies as "expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India." This involves determining the scope and meaning of the term "charged expenditure."

Petitioner's Arguments

Hypothetically, the petitioner (likely an opposition party or concerned citizen) might argue that the expenditure in question does not fall within the categories of expenditure that are legitimately "charged" on the Consolidated Fund as defined by the Constitution or established precedent. They might argue that the expenditure is discretionary and should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval through a vote.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent (likely the government) would argue that the expenditure does fall within the permissible categories of "charged" expenditure. They might cite specific provisions of the Constitution, relevant laws, or established financial practices to support their claim that the expenditure is either legally mandated or essential for the functioning of the state and therefore appropriately "charged."

Court's Reasoning

Since this isn't a specific case, there's no court reasoning provided. In a real case, the court would analyze the wording of Article 112(2), relevant constitutional assembly debates, established precedents regarding financial matters, and the specific nature of the expenditure in question. The court would likely emphasize the importance of parliamentary control over public finances while also recognizing the government's need to manage essential expenditures efficiently.

Conclusion

There is no specific ruling. The interpretation of Article 112(2) would depend on the specific facts of a hypothetical case. The court's decision would determine whether the expenditure in question is properly classified as "charged" or whether it requires a vote of the Parliament. No relief is granted as this is a hypothetical scenario.