On 7th April, 2010, applications were received by the Speaker from the companycerned MLAs praying for time to file their written statement.
The matters had to be adjourned on the said date till 4th February, 2011, to enable the Writ Petitioner to file his reply to the said application and for further companysideration.
In between, on 2nd June, 2011, the matter came up before the Division Bench of the High Court when directions were given for hearing of the petitions at least every week i.e. at least four times in a month.
Subsequently, another application was filed by Shri Dharam Singh before the Speaker on 10th November, 2009, requesting him to be recognized as a part of the INC in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha.
Aggrieved by the interim directions purportedly given under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure C.P.C. , the Speaker filed SLP C No.54 of 2012, challenging the same.
In terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the date of hearing of the five disqualification petitions was fixed for 20th January, 2011, by the Speaker.
On 20th December, 2010, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Speaker to finally decide the disqualification petitions pending before him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified companyy of the order, which direction has given rise to the question as to whether the High Court in its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was companypetent to issue such a direction to the Speaker who was himself a companystitutional authority.
The Speaker by a separate order dated 10th November, 2009, allowed the said application upon holding that the same was in companysonance with paragraph 4 1 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
On hearing the four legislators, namely, Shri Satpal Sangwan, Shri Vinod Bhayana, Shri Narendra Singh and Shri Zile Ram Sharma, who appeared before him, the Speaker by his order dated 9th November, 2009, accepted the merger with immediate effect, purportedly in terms of paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and directed that from the date of his order the said four legislators would be recognized as legislators of the INC in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha.
However, his cross examination companyld number be companypleted and the next date for further cross examination of Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi was fixed for 6th June, 2011.
The Speaker was requested to accept the merger and to recognize the applicant legislators as Members of the INC in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha.
On receipt of the said petitions, the Speaker on 22nd December, 2009, forwarded companyies thereof to the companycerned MLAs, asking them to submit their companyments within a period of three weeks.
By the said judgment, the Division Bench number only dismissed the appeal and did number choose to interfere with the directions given by the learned Single Judge to the Speaker to decide the petitions for disqualification of five MLAs within a period of four months, but in addition, directed that pending such decision, the five MLAs in question would stand disqualified from effectively functioning as members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha.
On 7th December, 2011, the relevant records of the proceedings before the Speaker were submitted to the High Court which adjourned the matter till 19th December, 2011, for further companysideration.
Finally, being dissatisfied with the progress of the pending disqualification petitions before the Speaker, the Division Bench took up the Letters Patent Appeals on 2nd December, 2011, when directions were given for production of the entire records of the matter pending before the Speaker.
On 21st June, 2011, the Speaker fixed all disqualification petitions for hearing on 24th June, 2011 and for further cross examination of Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi.
Thereafter, the disqualification petitions were taken up for hearing by the Speaker on 1st April, 2011, and the case was adjourned till 20th April, 2011, for further arguments.
On the said date, Dharam Singh, one of the Appellants before us, filed his reply before the Speaker along with an application for striking out the scandalous, frivolous and vexatious averments made in the disqualification petition.
On the very next day, Letters Patent Appeal No.366 of 2011 was filed by the Speaker, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 20th December, 2010.
However, on account of the sudden demise of Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, M.P. and former Chief Minister of Haryana, and also the father of Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi, the disqualification petitions were adjourned by the Speaker till 20th June, 2011.
Thereafter, a similar request was made to the Speaker by Shri Dharam Singh, another Member of the Vidhan Sabha elected as a candidate of the HJC BL to recognize the merger of the HJC BL with the INC and to also recognize him, along with the other four legislators, as Members of the INC in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha.
On 20th April, 2011, companynsel for the parties were heard and order was reserved on the application under Order 6 Rules 2 and 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which had been filed by Shri Dharam Singh.
However, while disposing of the matter, the Division Bench stayed the operation of the orders passed by the Speaker on the merger of the HJC BL with the INC dated 9th November, 2009 and 10th November, 2009.
The Respondent No.1, Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi, however, filed a Writ Petition, being C.W.P. No.14194 of 2010, in the Punjab Haryana High Court, seeking quashing of the orders passed by the Speaker on 9th and 10th November, 2009, and also for a declaration that the five MLAs in question were disqualified from the membership of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, and, in the alternative, for a direction on the Speaker to dispose of the disqualification petitions within a period of three months.
The cross examination of Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi was companycluded before the Speaker on 7th July, 2011, and 5th August, 2011, was fixed for recording the evidence of the MLAs.
The matter was accordingly adjourned and further time was granted to the companycerned MLAs to file their explanation.
Thereafter, the Speaker fixed 25th May, 2011, for examination cross examination of Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi, MLA, and his witnesses, and on the said date Shri Bishnois evidence was tendered and recorded.
The first Civil Appeal, arising out of SLP C No.54 of 2012, has been filed by the Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in his Letters Patent Appeal No.366 of 2011.
However, as alleged on behalf of the Appellants, the Bench was number companystituted on 19th December, 2011, and without any further hearing or giving an opportunity to the Speakers companynsel to make submissions on the status report, the High Court proceeded to pronounce its judgment on the Letters Patent Appeals.
On 1st March, 2011, the said LPA was listed before the Division Bench which stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
A submission was also made by the learned Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Speaker, that every attempt would be made to dispose of the disqualification petitions as expeditiously as possible.
The other three Special Leave Petitions number appeals were filed by the five MLAs, who were prevented from performing their functions as Members of the Assembly by the directions companytained in the impugned judgment and order dated 20th December, 2011.
Challenging the aforesaid orders, the Respondent No.1, Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi, filed five separate petitions before the Speaker under Article 191 read with the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India and the Haryana Legislative Assembly Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection Rules, 1986, on the ground that they had voluntarily given up the membership of their original political party and had joined the INC in violation of the provisions of paragraph 4 1 of the Tenth Schedule.
By its judgment which has been impugned in these proceedings, the Division Bench upheld the directions of the learned Single Judge directing the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within a period of four months.
By his order dated 27th April, 2011, the Speaker dismissed the said application filed by Dharam Singh and Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi was directed to file his list of witnesses along with their affidavits within 15 days from the date of the order.
In the meantime, proceedings before the Speaker companytinued and since the same were number being companycluded in terms of the assurances given, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the Speaker to file an affidavit on or before 11th November, 2011.
Notice of motion was issued to the Respondents on 16th August, 2010, directing them to enter appearance and to file their written statements, within three days before the next date of hearing fixed on 1st September, 2010, either in person or through a duly instructed Advocate.
On receipt of numberice from the High Court, the Speaker by his order dated 30th August, 2010, adjourned the hearing of the disqualification petitions sine die.
The said Appeal was heard on three companysecutive days when judgment was reserved.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
While SLP C No.55 of 2012 was filed by Narendra Singh and another, SLP C Nos.59 of 2012 and 72 of 2012 were filed by Dharam Singh and another and Zile Ram Sharma, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order for the same reasons as companytained in the Special Leave Petition filed by Narendra Singh and another.
The subject matter of challenge in these appeals is the final judgment and order dated 20th December, 2011, passed by the Punjab Haryana High Court in the different Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Appellants herein.
On 18th July, 2011, Letters Patent Appeal No.366 of 2011 and other companynected matters were listed before the Division Bench of the High Court.
