Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

xv. On 16.12.2015 at the Techi Takar Community Hall at G-Sector, Naharlagun, the Session of the House was held and the motion for removal of the Speaker was passed with 33(thirty-three) of the 60(sixty) Member House voting in favour of the resolution for removal of the Speaker. Consequently, the notification dated 16.12.2015 was issued by the Deputy Speaker functioning as Speaker, removing Shri Nabam Rebia from the Office of the Speaker and declaring that the Office of the Speaker of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly has fallen vacant with effect from the said time and date.

b) The Governor of Arunachal Pradesh issued an order under Article 174(1) of the Constitution of India summoning the 6th session of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 14/01/2016 to 18/01/2016.
c) On 19/11/2015 a group of 13 MLAs submitted a letter to the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh seeking preponing of the Session of Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly which was scheduled to be held on from 14/01/2016 to 18/01/2016 to consider and vote for the resolution for removal of the Speaker brought by them. It is stated that the notice of resolution for removal of the speaker was submitted on 19/11/2015 to the office of the Speaker which the said office duly received. Be it stated that as per provisions of proviso of Article 179 at least 14 days notice has to be given for moving a resolution for the removal of Speaker or Deputy Speaker.

[17] It has further been contended that the decision of the Governor of the State of Arunachal Pradesh in passing the order dated 09/12/2015 preponing the State's Assembly Session, the message of the Governor dated 09/12/2015 fixing resolution of removal of Speaker as the first item of business in the agenda of the preponed assembly session, the approval of the proceeding of the session held outside the assembly hall and the resolution of the order for removal of the Speaker and the disqualification of respondent Nos. 2 to 15 made by the Speaker under the Anti Defection Law are all following the exercise of due discretion by the Governor in the backdrop of proven majority of the MLAs opposing the Speaker of tdhe House and the fact that the Speaker himself failed to act on the notice for his removal from office and as such the impugned order is liable to be adequately modified forthwith.

[32] In the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the wisdom of the Governor and has contended that the resolution for removal of the Deputy Speaker having been moved, the Governor could not have given the priority to the resolution for removal of the Speaker in his impugned message dated 09.12.2015. In the I.A., the respondents have dealt with the same referring to the documents annexed to the same. In Paragraphs 3.4 & 3.5 of the I.A., the respondents have contended that on hearing reports about a resolution for removal of the Deputy Speaker having been received by the Secretary/Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Governor's Secretariat addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Assembly and also to the Speaker with a request to send the Governor a copy of such notice, if any. According to the respondents, the Governor Secretariat's communication was not responded to. It has further been stated that since the Governor has only received the notice of resolution for removal of the Speaker dated 19.11.2015, in terms of the mandate of first proviso to Article 179 of the Constitution of India, the Governor complying with the notice period of 14(fourteen) days, issued the impugned order dated 09.12.2015 modifying the summons already issued and instead summoning the 6th Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 16.12.2015 in exercise of the powers under Article 174(1) of the Constitution of India.