Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1(f). For more clarity, the docket orders from dated 19.03.2018 to 09.04.2018 when the matter reserved for judgment are reproduced herein:
1(f)(i). Docket order dated 19.03.2018:
Heard the arguments at length of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General (TG) appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, and also the arguments of Sri Avinash Desai, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-Election Commission.
However, this Court feels requirement of counter of respondents 1 & 2 and respondent No.3 respectively and at their request, the matter is adjourned to 22.03.2018.
So far as I.A.No.3 of 2018 is concerned, before passing any order it is required to be heard further on filing of counters with reply, if any.
Post on 22.03.2018.
1(f)(ii). Docket order dated 22.03.2018:
At request of the learned Additional Advocate General representing the Advocate General that for production of the original video footages of the Legislative Assembly, it is in the process from any requirement of resolution to submit and it is going to be submitted soon.
Hence, for compliance with the order for filing of counter by serving copies to the learned counsel for the petitioners by respondents 1 & 3, post on 06.04.2018.
1(f)(v). Docket order dated 09.04.2018:
Heard. Reserved for judgment.
2. It is thereby crystal clear that the 2nd respondent having participated in the proceedings and taken time twice to file counter and taken time twice to produce the original video footages of 12&13.03.2018 did not choose to comply and did not choose to appear much less to raise any contest including at least by disputing any of the writ petition affidavit averments on its correctness or otherwise, needless to say having received the Ex.P(1)(c) notice not even chosen to dispute any of its averments and not even complied with in response to the notice by supply of the documents and video footages, further withheld the best evidence without production before Court, despite undertaking to produce and again taken time to produce and for no reason to the non-production and withholding despite knowledge of the Constitution Bench expression of the Apex Court in Gopal Krishnaj Ketkar supra, reflected on the docket order dated 27.03.2018 supra of the non-production leads to adverse inference of the disputed events of 12&13.03.2018, from a party in possession of best evidence which could throw light upon the issue in controversy withholding it, Court can draw an adverse inference against them notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on them. Needless to say once the very Legislative Secretariat of the State of Telangana that what is rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Buildings is the 2nd respondent, there is no need of any resolution for the document to be produced by it, that too, when Rule 351 of the Rules of procedure and conduct of business of the Telangana Legislative Assembly clearly speaks that - the Secretary shall have custody of all records, documents and papers belonging to the House or any of its committees or Legislature Secretariat and he shall not permit any such records, documents or papers to be taken from the department without the permission of the speaker. Thus, it is at best the speakers permission is only required, not even a written for oral permission can be suffice therefrom, it is unknown how it could be represented on 22.03.2018 through the learned Additional Advocate General representing the Advocate General that for production of the original video footages of the Legislative Assembly, it is in the process from any requirement of resolution to submit and it is going to be submitted soon is no doubt the ultimate submission in taking time, but did not comply.

If a member is so named by the Speaker, the Speaker shall on a motion being made, forthwith put the question that the Member naming him be suspended from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session. No doubt the House may at any time on a motion being made resolve that such suspension be terminated, leave about Rule 358 enables to move by any member with consent of Speaker of any rule may be suspended in its application to a particular motion before the House and if the motion is carried the rule in question shall be suspended for the time being. It is not a case of Rule 358 is invoked. In fact, the Rules framed are under Article 208(1), which are different from the Rule making power of the Governor under Article 208(3). There is no dispute on the scope of Article 194(3) and Article 194(1) and (2), leave about said Rules are form part of the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of the Legislature of a State, and of the Members and Committees of such Legislature defined by the Legislature by law or not from its combined reading with Article 13 r/w the definition of the State in Article 12 since includes the Government and the Legislature of each of the States also to r/w Article 366 Clause 26-B. 6(b). Thus, for the alleged incident happened during the Governors address on 12.03.2018, besides not during part of business of the House, leave about the same is part of first session or not, mere Gazette notification dated 13.03.2018 without any details therein for expelling them, stating preceded by a resolution of the House of even date and in its uploading on even date, leave about no reason for not uploading for 11 days till 24.3.2018 of the resolution of their said expulsion dated 13.03.2018, leave about same is not within the meaning of resolution under Rule 2(1)(s) as referred supra and same undisputedly not supplied even any resolution if in existence, at least from the request of the petitioners by written notice under Ex.P1(c) acknowledged on 14.03.2018 and not even filing any such document before the Court including the original video footages of 12 & 13.03.2018 despite undertaken by the respondent No.2 through the Advocate General to produce by the submissions dated 19.03.2018, by 22.03.2018 and also for filing of counter and without even filing counter again taken time on 22.03.2018 for production and filing of counter to 27.03.2018 by the representation of the Additional Advocate General referred supra of the docket order and in the wake of the facts the uploading on 24.03.2018 of so called resolution dated 13.03.2018 and even from said resolution uploaded on 24.03.2018 referred in the reply affidavit supra dated 06.04.2018 as discussed supra nothing mentioned of what exact incident that happened to take such a grave recourse of expulsion of the two petitioners from the very duly elected respective Legislative Assembly membership of theirs. Suffice to say from the five Judge Constitution Bench expression of the Apex Court in Amar Singh Harika supra, that there is no enforcement of the order of expulsion of the petitioners dated 13.03.2018 even date for what was the incident that happened is not so far communicated to them much less by supply of even the original video footages which contain of what was the incident if at all happened for not even supplied despite their request by written notice dated 14.03.2018 and not even produced before the Court, to supply to the petitioners at least by Court, despite undertaking to produce through Advocate General by the 2nd respondent till 27.03.2018 and on that day the submission by the learned Additional Advocate General of not appearing for the 2nd respondent but for the 1st respondent having been so instructed and the question of production of the said original video footages pursuant to the undertaking by the Advocate General does not arise as reflected in the docket order supra dated 27.03.2018, including to draw adverse inference from non-production as mentioned therein and discussed supra and for non-production and non-disclosure of what are the exact incidents and its gravity that resulted in expulsion and if at all as petitioners stated came to know from the print media clippings of alleged hurling of earphone or the hitting of it to the Honble Chairman of Legislative Council Sri Swami Goud and in disputing of no such incident happened from the very notice averments dated 14.03.2018 and writ petition affidavit averments supra. Thus, this is not a mere irregularity of procedure covered by Article 212 of the Constitution of India to say this Court cannot scrutinize the action, leave about any alleged criminal misconduct of any of the two petitioners as Members of the House allegedly affecting dignity of House at best for criminal prosecution to report to police, is not an obstruction of legislative business for any Justifiability of exercising House privileges to expel, that too when the alleged incident if any happened was on 12.03.2018, when the Honble Governor has addressed the members of the Legislative Assembly as well as Legislative Council of Telangana Legislature, which was before commencement of the Budget session of the Legislative Assembly for the year 2018-19 for the Telangana State, with effect from 13.03.2018 as can also be seen from Ex.P8.