Jharkhand High Court
Babulal Marandi vs Speaker on 19 January, 2021
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020
Babulal Marandi, aged about 62 years, S/o-Late Chhotu Marandi, at
Present Leader of Bhartiya Janta Party Legislature Party in Jharkhand
Vidhan Sabha, R/o-Morabadi, PO-Morabadi & PS-Bariyatu, District-
Ranchi (Jharkhand).
. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Speaker, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Bhawan
(New), at Dhurwa, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi
(Jharkhand), Pin Code-834004.
2. Election Commission of India, represented through its Secretary,
Nirwachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, PO & PS-Ashoka Road, New
Delhi, District-New Delhi-110001.
... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(C) No.3654 of 2020
Bharatiya Janata Party through its Chief Whip (Main Opposition
Party) Sri Biranchi Narayan, aged about 49 years, son of Sri
Sadanand Prasad, resident of 33A, Sonatand, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-
Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro, also present MLA from Bokaro
Constituency & Member of Bharatiya Janata Party Legislative Party,
in 5th Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha.
... ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Hon'ble Speaker, 5th Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Secretariat,
Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-
Ranchi, State-Jharkhand.
2. Election Commission of India, Through Secretary, Nirvachan Sadan,
Ashoka Road, P.O., P.S. & District - New Delhi.
3. Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Jharkhand Vidhan
Sabha, P.O. & P.S.-Jagarnatpur, District-Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
[2]
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioners : Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. R.N.Sahay, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Yashwardhan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
: Dr. A.K.Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate
----------------------------
ORAL ORDER
09/Dated 19th January, 2021
1. The matters have been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality.
2. Both the writ petitions have been heard together.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the order dated 17.12.2020 at paragraph-8 due to typographical error "I.A. No.6200 of 2020" has been typed instead of "I.A. No.6257 of 2020", which requires correction.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised no objection to such submission.
5. Accordingly, the order dated 17.12.2020 is modified to the extent that, at paragraph-8, "I.A. No.6200 of 2020" be read as "I.A. No.6257 of 2020".
[3]W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020:
6. The instant writ petition has been filed by Shri Babulal Marandi, claimed Leader of Bhartiya Janta Party Legislature Party in Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha seeking a direction for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 18.08.2020 whereby and whereunder the Speaker, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha has taken suo moto decision that the subject is affected by the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and the writ petitioner was directed to produce evidences before him on 17.09.2020 at 01:00 p.m. Further relief sought is to hold the notice dated 18.08.2020 issued by the Speaker, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, without jurisdiction in view of the decision dated 06.03.2020 by the Election Commission of India.
It has further been urged by way of relief that the operation of impugned notice may remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.
W.P.(C) No.3654 of 2020:
7. The instant writ petition has been filed by Bharatiya Janata Party through its Chief Whip (Main Opposition Party) Sri Biranchi Narayan seeking a direction for quashing the Letter No.544(O) dated 18.08.2020 as also Letter No.731(O) dated 02.11.2020 with a further direction to appoint Shri Babulal Marandi as the Leader of the Opposition of the 5th Vidhan Sabha.
8. As per the roster, both the writ petitions have been placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court for its adjudication. Interlocutory [4] application being I.A. No.6200 of 2020 was filed in W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020 and another being I.A. No.6278 of 2020 was filed in W.P.(C) No.3654 of 2020 seeking leave to amend the writ petition for addition of relief for a declaration to hold sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Sadasya (Dal Parivartan Ke Aadhar Par Nirharta) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 2006), as ultra vires.
9. The learned Single Judge heard the said interlocutory applications and allowed the prayer made therein with a direction upon the Office to place the matter before the Division Bench of this Court as after amendment having been allowed, the question of vires of sub-
rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2006 is required to be considered by a Division Bench, as per the High Court Rules. Thereafter, the matters have been assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice by an administrative order dated 15.12.2020 and thereby, the matters came up before this Court.
10. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions are that the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3687 of 2020, at the relevant time, was the Kendriya Adhyaksh (President) of Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik), hereinafter referred to as JVM(P), a recognized and registered State Level Political Party by the Election Commission of India. A meeting of the Central Working Committee of JVM(P) was held on 11.02.2020 wherein it was resolved to merge the JVM(P) political party with Bhartiya Janta Party (hereinafter referred to as BJP), a national political party. Further, in a meeting of the Legislature Party of the JVM(P) [5] held on 11.02.2020, it was unanimously resolved to merge JVM(P) with BJP.
In view of the aforesaid decisions, the President of JVM(P), the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3687 of 2020, had written a letter on 11.02.2020 to the Election Commission of India by enclosing the decision taken in the meeting dated 11.02.2020 by making a request to take steps as JVM(P) and its legislature party stand merged with BJP henceforth.
The Election Commission of India vide letter dated 06.03.2020 has informed regarding merger of JVM(P) with BJP. The fact about the merger has been brought to the notice of the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly.
The Speaker issued a notice on 18.08.2020 stating that he has come to believe that there is an issue affecting the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and as such, the writ petitioner was directed to produce evidence himself or through Advocate on 17.09.2020.
11. The writ petitioner filed response raising the question of jurisdiction to the effect that the Speaker of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly has no power to take suo moto cognizance to treat a case under Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India as the constitutional mandate as under Tenth Schedule under Paragraph 6 thereof, the Speaker has only been conferred with the power to take decision on questions as to the disqualification on ground of defection if any question to that effect is referred. Though, in the case in hand no [6] such issue has been referred by anyone for its adjudication, however, such power has been exercised by the Speaker in pursuance to the provision of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2006 which confers power to the Speaker to take suo moto decision for determining the question of defection in view of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
12. The matters were heard by this Court on 17th December, 2020. An order was passed keeping the further proceeding in pursuance to the notice dated 18.08.2020 as initiated against the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020 (Babulal Maandi vs. Speaker, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha & Another), in abeyance till the next date of hearing.
13. The counsel for the respondents have been directed to file counter affidavit with respect to the vires of the provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2006 before the next date of hearing so that the matter may be decided. Notice was also issued to the learned Advocate General, State of Jharkhand.
14. The respondent-Speaker, Jhakrhand Vidhan Sabha has filed Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.73-74 of 2021. The aforesaid appeal was disposed of vide order dated 12.01.2021. The aforesaid order is reproduced as hereunder:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since the matter is listed before the High Court for final 2 disposal tomorrow i.e. 13th January, 2021, we are not inclined to entertain these special leave petitions. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.[7]
However, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter(s) peremptorily. The petitioner(s) is at liberty to raise all questions including the tenability of writ petition(s) of this nature before the High Court.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
15. Both the writ petitions were listed on 13th January, 2021.
Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior counsel appeared for the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly and made oral submission that the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly (respondent No.1), will not be proceeding any further in the disqualification proceedings in Tenth Schedule Case No.01/2020 concerning which the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020 were issued which is the subject matter of the instant writ petitions.
Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel had sought for time to post the matter on 14th January, 2021 to file an affidavit to that effect and thereby, the matter was adjourned to be listed on 14th January, 2021.
16. The matter was listed on 14th January, 2021 and pressing the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, it has been submitted by referring to the statement made at paragraph-5 thereof, that the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, shall not be proceeding any further in the disqualification proceedings in the Tenth Schedule Case No.01/2020 concerning which notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020 were issued, and which are subject matter of the instant writ petitions.
[8]
17. Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel has submitted that although a detailed affidavit has been filed on the merit of the issue but, since the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly has taken a conscious decision not to proceed in pursuance to the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020, both the writ petitions be rendered to be infructuous since the cause of action pertaining to questioning the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020 on the ground of the statutory provision conferred upon the Speaker as under Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 which confers power to suo moto initiate proceeding for disqualification under Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India since, was no more in operation by virtue of the aforesaid decision of the Speaker of the Assembly. As such, the question of validity of the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 has become merely an academic issue. It is settled about the practice of the Hon'ble Apex Court not to decide academic questions and accordingly, the issue/question can be left open for its adjudication in some other matter when such issue arises. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K. Roy vs. Union of India and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 271, Padmakar Balkrishna Samant vs. Abdul Rehman Antulay and Anr., (1984) 2 SCC 183 and Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 657.
18. Per contra Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020 and Mr. R.Venkataramani, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3654 of 2020 have submitted, referring the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in [9] Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.73-74 of 2021, that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in explicit terms, has requested the High Court to dispose of the matter peremptorily granting liberty to the petitioners (respondents herein) to raise all questions including the tenability of the writ petition(s) of this nature before the High Court. In that view of the matter, the issue pertaining to validity of the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 is required to be answered irrespective of the fact that the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020 have been made inoperative.
It has been submitted that if an issue has been raised, the same cannot be rendered to be infructuous rather it has to be decided by the Court of Law. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Ravi and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2007) 15 SCC 631, Naz Foundation vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2016) 15 SCC 619 and one unreported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal No.3821 of 2020).
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated rival submissions on the issues. Admittedly, the petitioners have questioned the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020. In course of proceeding when the matter was in seisin of the learned Single Judge of this Court, an amendment was sought to question the validity of the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006, so far as it empowers the Speaker to proceed even suo moto and which was allowed. As such, initially the entire relief sought for by the [10] petitioners in both the writ petitions were to be heard by learned Single Judge taking into consideration the nature of relief sought for therein, however, after the amendment pertaining to the validity of the statute having been allowed, the matter came before this Court (Division Bench) for considering the question of validity of the aforesaid provision.
20. This Court has considered the factual aspect vis-à-vis the issue of validity of the provision as contained in Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 and considering the entire facts, i.e., issuance of notices and validity of the provision as contained in Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 passed an interim order keeping the notice dated 18.08.2020 in abeyance.
21. We, after deliberating the issues and considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties as also the proposition of law, passed an order to the effect which reads as hereunder:
"We are not expressing at this stage any final opinion on merit but whatever is being said that is for the purpose of considering the fact as to whether the writ petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for passing an interim order or not."
The prime consideration in passing the order was the issue of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and the provision contained under Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006.
It is further evident that although the validity of the statutory provision has been questioned in both the writ petitions after amendment having been allowed by the learned Single Judge [11] in both the writ petitions but this Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020 who is a Legislative Member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly against whom the notice dated 18.08.2020 was issued for disqualification in exercise of power conferred under Tenth Schedule to the Speaker, directed that the operation of the notice dated 18.08.2020 shall be kept in abeyance since it may adversely affect the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020, meaning thereby, this Court has considered the fact about the legality and propriety of the notice dated 18.08.2020 vis-à-vis the validity of the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006.
22. When the case was listed for hearing, the order of Hon'ble Apex Court was placed by the learned counsel for the parties passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.73-74 of 2021 as referred and quoted above. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 14.01.2021 an affidavit was filed by the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly before this Court, paragraph-5 of which is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"5. That the Hon'ble Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly (Respondent No.1 herein) shall not be proceeding any further in the disqualification proceedings in Tenth Schedule Case No.01/2020, concerning which notices dated 18th August, 2020 and 02nd November, 2020 were issued which is also under challenge in the present Writ petitions."
23. Now the question would be, whether after the decision of the Speaker for not proceeding any further in the disqualification proceedings in Tenth Schedule Case No.01/2020, will it be proper [12] for this Court to go into the validity of the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006?
24. Rival submissions have been made in this regard by placing reliance upon various decisions of the Apex Court. Paragraph-28 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K. Roy vs. Union of India and Others (supra) reads as under:
"28. There are, however, two reasons why we do not propose to discuss at greater length the question as regards the justiciability of the President's satisfaction under Article 123(1) of the Constitution. In the first place, the ordinance has been replaced by an Act. It is true, as contended by Shri Tarkunde, that if the question as regards the justiciability of the President's satisfaction is not to be considered for the reason that the ordinance has become an Act, the occasion will hardly ever arise for considering that question because, by the time the challenge made to an ordinance comes up for consideration before the court, the ordinance almost invariably shall have been replaced by an Act. All the same, the position is firmly established in the field of constitutional adjudication that the court will decide no more than needs to be decided in any particular case. Abstract questions present interesting challenges, but it is for scholars and textbook writers to unravel their mystique. It is not for the courts to decide questions which are but of academic importance."
It is evident from the said judgment that the validity of the Ordinance was the subject matter but the Ordinance has been replaced by an Act, as such, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that since the Ordinance has become an Act, hence, nothing survives to be decided because it is not for the Courts to decide question which are but of academic importance.
The factual aspect of A.K. Roy vs. Union of India and Others's (supra) case is different to that of the facts of the case in [13] hand since therein the Ordinance had taken the shape of an Act and as such, the Ordinance had lost its efficacy, therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court did not proceed to decide the legality and propriety of the Ordinance on the pretext that the same has become of academic value.
In Padmakar Balkrishna Samant vs. Abdul Rehman Antulay and Anr. (supra) the question about the competency to sanction prosecution of MLA as envisaged by Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was the issue. The Hon'ble Apex Court came to a conclusive finding in the aforesaid case that MLA is not a public servant within the meaning of the expression in Section 21 of IPC. No sanction is necessary to prosecute him for the offences alleged to have been committed by him and in view of the aforesaid consequence, the question of competent authority to sanction prosecution of MLA as envisaged by Section 6 has become one academic interest, therefore, by referring to the said practice of the Hon'ble Apex Court not to decide the academic questions, the question was left open.
In Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar (supra) at paragraph-6 the Apex Court has observed about the settled practice not to decide matters which are only of academic interest on the facts on a particular case.
25. On the other hand, the petitioners have relied upon the judgment rendered in N. Ravi and Others vs. Union of India and Others (supra) in which the validity of Section 499 of the Penal Code was questioned since the complaint case was filed under the penal [14] provision of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code but all the complaints were withdrawn and in that pretext it has been observed in the aforesaid judgment that after withdrawal of the complaints, though the prayer about the validity of Section 499 has also become academic but having regard to the importance of the question, the Hon'ble Apex Court was in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the validity aspect deserves to be examined.
In Naz Foundation vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others (supra) the Constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Penal Code, 1860 was questioned and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court, without examining the issue, dismissed the writ petition observing that there is no cause of action in favour of the appellant as the petition cannot be filed to test the validity of the Legislation, therefore, it cannot be entertained to examine the academic challenge to the constitutionality of the provision. Hence, the order passed by the High Court was set aside remanding it for fresh decision.
In M/s Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others (supra) the validity of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was questioned. The High Court had refused to interfere observing that the assessment proceeding was pending before the assessing officer. However, the liberty was left upon the writ petitioner to raise the issue of validity of the aforesaid section before the assessing authority. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court since the very issue which fell before the assessing officer pertains [15] to the question of legality and propriety of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which cannot be adjudicated by the statutory authority rather it has to be tested by the High Court itself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the matter was remitted before the High Court to decide the writ petition on merit with respect to the challenge to the vires of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
26. So far as the judgment rendered in M/s Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others (supra) is concerned, in our considered view that is not applicable in the facts of this case. In the aforesaid matter, the assessing officer was incompetent to decide the issue of validity of the concerned statutory provision. However, in the case in hand the facts are quite different as the Speaker, who had issued notices in alleged suo moto exercise of power has undertaken not to proceed in the case in which the impugned notices were issued.
27. We have also considered the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Narender Singh, (2005) 6 SCC 106 wherein it has been observed that a writ petition questioning the Tribunal's order on merit does not become infructuous on giving effect to the Tribunal's order. Relevant are paragraphs-5 & 6, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"5. The High Court's order is clearly indefensible. A writ petition questioning the Tribunal's order on merits does not become infructuous by giving effect to the Tribunal's order. Merely because the order of reinstatement had been implemented by the appellant, that did not render the writ petition infructuous as has been observed by the High Court.[16]
This position was clearly stated in Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar [(1973) 4 SCC 183 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 374] . In para 23 of the decision it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 193) "23. Mr Singhvi, learned counsel, then referred us to the fact that after the judgment of the High Court the State Government has passed an order on 19-3-1971, the effect of which is to equate the Sales Tax Officers of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade III, of Bombay. This order, in our opinion, has been passed by the State Government only to comply with the directions given by the High Court. It was made during a period when the appeal against the judgment was pending in this Court. The fact that the State Government took steps to comply with the directions of the High Court cannot lead to the inference that the appeal by the Union of India has become infructuous."
6. The expression infructuous means ineffective, unproductive and unfruitful. It is derived from the Latin word "fructus" (fruit). By implementing an order, the challenge to the validity of the order is not wiped out and is not rendered redundant."
28. So far as the fact of the case in hand is concerned, admittedly, when the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge, no relief about validity of the statutory provision as contained under Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 was in question, however, by virtue of the amendment having been allowed pertaining to the relief of questioning the validity of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 and in consequence of the aforesaid order allowing the amendment, the validity of the statutory provision as contained under Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 has become one of the reliefs sought in the writ petitions.
[17]
29. We, after considering the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, are of the view that so far as the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020 are concerned, by virtue of the statement made in the concerned affidavit, the same has become ineffective, as such, to that effect the writ petitions can be held to have become infructuous.
However, having said so, the issue of validity of the concerned Rule definitely does not become academic as there is every likelihood that the question may emerge again and again. Whenever, the Speaker will come across such issue in future, the factum of prima facie observation of this Court may always stir his or others mind. Since the question to be considered is serious and important one, in our considered opinion, it should not be left open specially when, even considering the same to be academic, will definitely not render the writ petition infructuous as there are other questions raised in the writ petitions are also to be decided and, thus, at least one of the writ petitions would definitely remain alive for deciding the reliefs sought other than the issue of validity of Rules.
30. We have emphatically considered the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naz Foundation vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others (supra) wherein the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had dismissed the writ petition questioning the validity of Section 377 in view of lack of cause of action in favour of the appellant. However, [18] the same was quashed and set aside remitting the matter to the High Court for a decision on the issue.
We have also considered the judgment rendered in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Narender Singh (supra) wherein it has been observed that even if the order of Tribunal has been given effect to, the order on merit is required to be tested and in that view of the matter, the writ petitions cannot be rendered to be infructuous.
31. We have also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.73-74 of 2021 as quoted and referred above wherein this Court has been directed to dispose of the matters peremptorily. The word "peremptorily" has been used in the said order and as per the Black's Law Dictionary, the meaning of "peremptory" is commanding in imperative way or decisive to preclude further question or debate, therefore, we are not in agreement with the arguments advanced by Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel for the respondents that the issue of validity of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 has become an academic issue. Accordingly, we are of the firm view that the writ petitions pertaining to the validity of the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 and other reliefs, is required to be considered and decided by this Court.
32. We are further of the view that the interim order passed by this Court on 17th December, 2020 to the effect that the notice dated 18.08.2020 shall be kept in abeyance is required to be recalled in view of the stand having been taken by the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly at paragraph-5 of the additional affidavit [19] stating in clear terms that he shall not be proceeding any further in disqualification proceedings in Tenth Schedule Case No.01/2020, in which the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020 were issued. The order granting interim relief has now lost its efficacy. Accordingly, the interim relief granted vide order dated 17.12.2020 stands vacated.
33. Since in W.P.(C) No.3654 of 2020, the Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha is already a party, therefore, prayer has been made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020 that in this case also, the Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha may be impleaded as party-respondent.
34. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised no objection to such submission.
Accordingly, Office is directed to implead Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha as party-respondent in W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020.
35. As agreed by parties, let the matters be listed on 02.03.2021 for further hearing.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh A.F.R.