Patna High Court - Orders
Manoj Kumar Singh vs Bihar State Legislative Council & Ors on 20 June, 2014
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9361 of 2014
======================================================
1. Manoj Kumar Singh son of Sri Madan Singh resident of village-
Pratappur, P.S.- Hussainganj, District- Siwan at present residing at Flat No.
fat103, Daroga Rai Path, M.L.C. Flat, Patna- 800001 (Bihar)
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar Legislative Council, Bihar, Patna through the Secretary
2. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council, Bihar, Patna
3. Secretary (Working), Bihar Legislative Council, Bihar, Patna
4. Under Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council, Bihar, Patna
5. Election Commission, Government of India, Election Sadan, Ashoka
Road, New Delhi- 110001 through The Chief Election Commissioner
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Meeta Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
5 20-06-2014Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
The petitioner who was elected as a Member of the Bihar Legislative Council in the year 2009 has questioned the Notification issued by the respondent No. 3 the Incharge Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council, Patna under the orders and directions of the Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council bearing Memo No. 68/2014-1040(1) 13.1/B.P. dated 24.4.2014 whereby 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.9361 of 2014 (5) dt.20-06-2014 2/6 the resignation of the petitioner from the post of Member, Bihar Legislative Council has been accepted with effect from 21.4.2014 in purported exercise of power vested under Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the alleged resignation is a forged and fabricated document inasmuch as he never submitted any such resignation. With reference to Rule 83 under Chapter 10 of the Bihar Legislative Council (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') it was submitted that the resignation not being in the prescribed format, that by itself was sufficient for the Chairman to at least hear the petitioner before accepting the same. It is the case of the petitioner that even otherwise, the resignation being without any date and with the signature differing that also was sufficient to create suspicion as regarding its veracity and in which view of the matter an obligation was cast upon the Chairman of the Council to enquire into the matter for satisfying himself as to the genuineness of the resignation in terms of the proviso underlying Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India.
The arguments of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents and a comprehensive counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Council in which it has been categorically stated 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.9361 of 2014 (5) dt.20-06-2014 3/6 in paragraph 5 that the petitioner submitted the resignation in question personally on 20.4.2014 and filed his nomination form for contesting the 16th Lok Sabha Election from Siwan constituency on 21.4.2014. It is the case of the Council that the impugned order having been passed on 24.4.2014 accepting the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 21.4.2014, the petitioner took no steps to question the Notification and awaited the results of the Election which were declared on 16.5.2014 before moving this Court through the present writ petition on 26.5.2014. It is thus the stand of the council that since the petitioner who was elected in the Council as an independent, consciously contested the Lok Sabha Election on a ticket of a political party, he was well aware of the disqualification which was entailing under the provisions of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution and which in fact had prompted him to submit his resignation which obviously did not leave any room for suspicion in the accompanying circumstances.
In so far as the issue of difference of signature is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents have referred to the signature of the petitioner occurring in the nomination paper placed at Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit, the representation filed against the impugned Notification placed at Annexure-3 to the 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.9361 of 2014 (5) dt.20-06-2014 4/6 writ petition and the application for pass as an erstwhile member placed at Annexure-4 to counter affidavit which was subsequently cancelled, to submit that the petitioner is in habit of changing his signature. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that though the petitioner filed his objections to the resignation which is placed at Annexure-3, there is no objection regarding absence of communication of the impugned Notification.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record.
There is absolutely no contest on the submissions of Mr. Verma that an obligation is cast upon the Chairman/Speaker of the House to enquire into a matter of resignation submitted by the Member of the House as per the mandate underlying the proviso to Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, upon receiving information or otherwise.
The question arises is whether the Chairman/Speaker is to routinely exercise such power or there should be a condition precedent for exercise thereof. The provision itself requires such exercise upon an information received or otherwise meaning thereby there should be circumstances accompanying a resignation which leave doubts in the mind of the Speaker/Chairman 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.9361 of 2014 (5) dt.20-06-2014 5/6 prompting him to hold an enquiry. The question is whether any such circumstances did exist in the present case requiring an enquiry. The resignation in question was received by the Secretary of the Council on 20.4.2014 and bears the endorsement of the Secretary as well as the Chairman. Though an issue was sought to be raised by Mr. Verma on the anvil that 20th of April 2014 was a Sunday but it is not in controversy that there is no bar of working of the Council on a Sunday and that the office is functioning. On the very next day i.e. 21.01.2014 the petitioner files his nomination claiming to be a Member of the political party meaning thereby there is a conscious positive act of the petitioner foregoing his status as an independent Member and by claiming allegiance to a political party thus rendering him sufficiently disqualified in terms of the provisions underlying paragraph 2 (2) of the 10th Schedule and a sufficient indication to his voluntarily surrender as an independent Member of the Council under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule.
The accompanying circumstances thus leave no reason to doubt the resignation filed by the petitioner surrendering his independent Membership to the council. The back to back act of the petitioner in filing his nomination as a Member of a political party on 21.4.2014 with the Chairman receiving his resignation a day 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.9361 of 2014 (5) dt.20-06-2014 6/6 earlier on 20.4.2014, did not in any circumstance, in the opinion of this Court leave any reason for the Chairman to doubt the veracity of the resignation requiring him to discharge the obligation cast under the proviso to Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India.
For the reasons aforementioned, I am not inclined to grant indulgence to the issue raised.
This application is accordingly dismissed.
(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/-
U T