Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jaswant Singh vs The Speaker Raj Vidhansabha on 5 March, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.630/2010 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4991/2010 Jaswant Singh Gurjar Vs. The Hon'ble Speaker, Rajasthan Vidhansabha Date of Judgment: MARCH 05,2012 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. Hemant Nahta, for the appellant Mr.Veyankatesh Garg on behalf of Mr.G.S. Bapna, Advocate General Mr.A.K.Bhandari, Sr. Counsel ) assisted by Mr.Vaibhav Bhargava) Mr.S.R.Joshi ) Mr.P.C.Shah ) Mr.O.P. Mishra ) for the respondents BY THE COURT(Per Hon'ble Jain J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 3rd September, 2010 passed by Single Bench, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant has been dismissed.
3. The petitioner filed a writ petition before Single Bench with the prayer that this Court may direct the respondent No.1, Speaker Rajasthan State Assembly, Jaipur to decide the application of the petitioner, wherein it was averred that he is a former MLA. He had submitted a petition under Para 2(1) of Schedule X and Article 191 of the Constitution of India on 21.4.2009 before respondent No.1, Speaker, Rajasthan State Assembly seeking disqualification of respondent No.2 Shri Girriraj Singh Mallanga, who was elected as a MLA of the 13th house of Rajasthan State Assembly from Bari constituency. The said petition was registered as Petition No.1/2009. Since Shri Mallanga had voluntarily given up the membership of his original political party BSP, which had set up him as a candidate in the elections, therefore, he bacame disqualified under Para 2(1) of Schedule X. Therefore, he is liable to be declared as disqualified by the Speaker in exercise of powers vested under Para 6 of Schedule X. The petition before Speaker is pending since long and he is not deciding it, therefore, it has become necessary to file the writ petition. The following prayer was made in the writ petition:-
1. That this Hon'ble Court may direct the respondent No.1 Hon'ble Speaker to decide the application of the petitioner applicant seeking releasing of petition no.1/2009 for its adjudication by the Hon'ble High Court on the next date of hearing 03.05.2010 (last date 26.02.2010) and thereafter conduct the proceedings on day-to-day basis if need be.
2. That in case of Hon'ble Court reaching to a satisfaction that Hon'ble Speaker will not comply with the directions within the time appointed for the purpose, the petition no.1/2009 may kindly be ordered to be withdrawn to this Hon'ble Court & thereafter decided by this Hon'ble Court in view of the position of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Rana Vs. Swami Prasad Mourya.
3, Any other relief or order which your honour may deem fit to be given to the petitioner in the facts & circumstances of the case, may kindly also be given.
4. The writ petition was dismissed by Single Bench vide its order dated 3rd September, 2010 on the ground that petition is pending before the Speaker and it is a prior stage to the making of a decision by the Speaker and thus this Court cannot issue notice of this petition to the Speaker, who is one of the Constitutional functionary. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Single Bench, this intra-court appeal has been preferred.
5. The appeal was listed before this Court on 22nd November, 2011. Learned Advocate General submitted that Speaker has given assurance that he will decide the matter within a period of three months. The following order was passed on 22.11.2011:-
Mr. G.S. Bapna, learned Advocate General submits that he has received instructions from Hom'ble Speaker and he has authorized him to give assurance to this Court on his behalf that both the matters will be decided by him within a period of three months.
In view of above assurance given by Hon'ble Speaker through Advocate General, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the matter be deferred for a period of three months.
As prayed by parties, put up on 01.03.2012 along with connected matter.
6. The respondent No.1 has filed order dated 27.2.2012 passed by him, whereby petition no.1/2009 filed by petitioner has been dismissed. The order is taken on record.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since petition pending before Speaker has been decided, therefore, nothing survives in this special appeal and the same may be dismissed as having become infructuous.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he may be permitted to file an application for amendment seeking permission to challenge order dated 27.2.2012. Therefore, case be adjourned.
9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
10. The grievance of the appellant was that his petition pending before Speaker is not being decided for last about 3 years, therefore, specific direction be given to Speaker to decide his petition at the earliest.
11. Since petition filed by petitioner has been decided by respondent No.1, therefore, nothing survives to be decided in this appeal and the same has become infructuous. So far as grant of time to file an application for amendment, challenging the order dated 27.2.2012 is concerned, we find that it gives separate cause of action. The writ petition is not pending and it has been decided finally. This is a writ appeal. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no time is required to be granted to the appellant to file an application. However, it is observed that if petitioner feels aggrieved with the order dated 27th February, 2012, he is at liberty to challenge it independently in accordance with law.
12. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the intra-court appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous with no order as to cost.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ. BKS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in
the judgment/order being emailed.
B.K. SHRIVASTAVA
PRIVATE SECRETARY