Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thirdly, during the pendency of the present writ petitions, the respondent Nos. 4 to 10, have already resigned from their post of MLA. Therefore, the present writ petitions have become infructuous. Thus, they should be dismissed as infructuous.

17. In rejoinder, Mr. Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that mere resignation of the respondent Nos. 4 to 10, would not make the writ petitions infructuous. Even if the said respondents have resigned, that does not preclude the Hon'ble Speaker from deciding the disqualification petition. Since the Speaker has a constitutional responsibility to decide a disqualification petition, he cannot escape from discharging the said responsibility on the pretext that the said respondents have resigned. Furthermore, if the said respondents were declared to be disqualified, as mentioned above, the disqualification would relate back to the date of their defying the whip. Therefore, the benefits derived by them while holding the post of MLA such as their salaries, and perks can be recovered from them. According to the learned Senior Counsel, while the de-facto doctrine applies to acts done in the interest of public, or third parties, it does not apply to the benefits which the wrongdoer has received for himself. In order to buttress this proposition, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the case of VEERENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM AND OTHERS v. KARUNA NIDHAN UPADHYAY AND OTHERS [(2016) 14 SCC 18].

26. Considering the peculiar circumstances that the respondent Nos. 4 to 10 have resigned during the pendency of the present writ petitions, the question before this court is, whether this court would be justified in directing the Hon'ble Speaker to still decide the disqualification petition, within a stipulated period, or not ?

27. Undoubtedly, the Hon'ble Speaker holds a public office; admittedly, the constitutional duty to adjudicate upon the disqualification petition is bestowed upon the Hon'ble Speaker. Therefore, while discharging his constitutional duty, the Hon'ble Speaker not only fulfils the constitutional mandate, but also strengthens the faith of the people in the public office. If the Hon'ble Speaker is permitted to maintain a studied silence over a disqualification petition, the omission to take a decision will scuttle the constitutional duty and defeat the very purpose of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. Moreover, the public at large would be convinced that the Hon'ble Speaker is refusing to exercise his quasi-judicial power for oblique political motives. Such a public impression would undermine the majesty of the office, and of Rule of Law. For, if a constitutional post holder is permitted to defy the constitution itself, the people will no longer respect the constitutional provisions. Considering the fact that a lis does exist before the Hon'ble Speaker, it is imperative that the lis is decided, one way or the other, even if there is not much to decide due to the resignation of the respondent Nos. 4 to 10. But, merely because respondent Nos. 4 to 10 have resigned from the post of MLA, it does not mean that the Hon'ble Speaker is precluded from exercising his power to declare them as disqualified. Since, a public duty has been imposed upon the Hon'ble Speaker, the Hon'ble Speaker cannot escape the performance of the public duty. Hence, it is imperative that the Hon'ble Speaker should decide the disqualification petition pending before him.