GABRIELLE NASH, APPELLANT,

v.

MELVIN J. RICHARD, MAYOR AND COUNCILMAN OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, BERNARD A. FRANK, VICE-MAYOR AND COUNCILMAN OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AND KENNETH OKA, MALVIN ENGLANDER, D. LEE POWELL, HYMAN P. GALBUT, AND ROBERT L. TURCHIN, CONSTITUTING THE CITY COUNCIL AND GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPALITY CREATED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, as relator in the circuit court, petitioned for an alternative writ of mandamus to compel the Miami Beach City Council to adopt or submit to the electorate certain proposed charter amendments. No alternative writ was issued. After a hearing on notice the petition was dismissed, and relator appealed. The city charter was amendable under home rule in Dade *612 County, 1 and the charter of Metropolitan Dade Comity set out the requirements and procedure.2 In the petition it was alleged that as provided for under the Metropolitan Dade County Charter, Article 5, § 5.03, relator had submitted to the city council a petition for enactment or submission to the electors of six proposed charter amendments, certified to by the city clerk as having been made by more than 10% of the qualified electors of the city, that demand had been made and refused, and that the city council was under a legal duty to submit such proposed charter amendments to the electors.

A similar mandamus action had been brought earlier, within the 120-day period allowed for election, in which it was alleged the majority of the council had “openly declared” they would not submit the matter to the electors. The dismissal thereof was appealed to this court, and we affirmed (166 So.2d 624) on the ground that the application for mandamus, made before the time to hold the election had expired, was premature, saying (at 624-625) :

“The order quashing the alternative writ of mandamus and dismissing appellants’ petition is affirmed because it does not appear from the petition that the City Council of the City of Miami Beach failed or refused to perform a clear legal duty prior to the filing of the petition. * * * ” [Emphasis supplied.]

Our affirmance of the judgment rejecting the first mandamus action was filed August 4, 1964. The present petition for mandamus alleges demand was made on the respondent City Council the following day, on August 5, 1964. This action was filed a week thereafter, on August 12, 1964.

No useful purpose would be served by a lengthy opinion. We are of the view that the petition seeking an alternative writ of mandamus made out a prima facie case, and justified issuance of an alternative writ and a disposition of the cause on the merits. Our holding that the petition is sufficient to call for issuance of an alternative writ should not be construed or considered as ruling upon or expressing any view with reference to the constitutionality, or otherwise, of the proffered charter amendments.

The judgment dismissing the petition for mandamus is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.