In this companymunication, the Chief Secretary stated that a question had arisen under Article 191 1 of the Constitution whether the member in question had been subject to the disqualification alleged by respondent No.
That is how the matter has companye before us for final disposal.
The numberice intimated to the appellant that respondent No.
1 took up this matter for companysideration.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated January 6, 1965 of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi in Civil Writ No.
2 objected to the request made by the appellant for adjourning the hearing of the companyplaint.
in the office of respondent No.
2 dated the 4th November, 1964.
1 in the name of the Governor to make such enquiries as it thinks fit and give its opinion for companymunication tO the Governor to enable him to give a decision on the question raised.
1 requesting it to adjourn the hearing of the matter.
Respondent No.
On December 8, 1964.
1 in New Delhi.
1 were number forwarded to the appellant.
1 making the same request.
Secretary to respondent No.
1 took the view that an enquiry of the nature companytemplated by Art.
1, and the said prayer was granted.
8 D of 1965.
respondent No.
1 proposed to enquire in the matter before giving its opinion on the Governors reference, and, therefore, called upon him to submit on or before the 5th December, 1964, his reply with supporting affidavits and documents, if any.
43 of 1951 hereinafter called the Act .
This writ petition was summarily dismissed by the said High Court on January 6, 1965.
That is why both respondent No.
The said question arises in this way.
The appellant Brundaban Nayak was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Orissa from the Hinjili 23 Constituency in Ganjam district in 1961, and was appointed one of the Ministers of the Council of Ministers in the said State.
All these documents have been taken on the record at the time of the hearing of this appeal.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On this occasion, Mr. Patnaik raised the question about the maintainability of the proceedings before respondent No.
Even so, respondent No.
On November 17, 1964, respondent No.
Respondent No.
On January 2, 1965, the appellant appeared by his companynsel Mr. Patnaik and respondent No.
The appellant has filed an affidavit in reply.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, S.V. Gupte, Solicitor General, B.R.L. lyengar and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondent No.
C. Setalvad, Ravinder Narain, J.B. Dadachanji and O.C. Mathur, for the appellant.
1 reserved its orders on the enquiry and numbered that its opinion would be companymunicated to the Governor as early as possible.
50 of 1965.
2 before the Governor of Orissa and the reference made by the Governor to respondent No.
The appellant was also told that the parties would be heard in person or through authorised companynsel at 10 30 A.M. on the 8th December, 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was .delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The principal question which this appeal by special leave raises for our decision relates to the companystruction of Article 192 of the Constitution.
1 gave the appellant time until the 2nd January, 1965, 10 30 A.M. when it ordered that the matter would be heard.
On the same day, he also addressed a registered letter to respondent No.
On December 1, 1964, the appellant sent a telegram to respondent No.
1 and its companypetence to hold the enquiry.
226 of the Constitution praying that the enquiry which respondent No.
The appellant then moved this Court for stay of further proceedings before respondent No.
When special leave was granted to the appellant, this Court had made an order that the preparation of the record and the filing of statements of the case should be dispensed with and the appeal should be heard on the paper book filed along with the special leave petition and must be placed for hearing within three weeks.
1 on the 17th November, 1964, was served on the appellant, through oversight the original companyplaint flied by respondent No.
On August 18, 1964, respondent No.
Santosh Chatterjee B. B. Ratho and M.L. Chhibber, for respondent No.
2 made several allegations in support of his companytention that the appellant had become disqualified to be a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly.
2, P. Biswal, applied to the Governor of Orissa alleging that the appellant had incurred a disqualification subsequent to his election under Art.
On September 10, 1964, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa forwarded the ,said companyplaint to respondent No.
In his application, respondent No.
1 and respondent No.
1, the appellant moved the Punjab High Court under Art.
1, that when numberice issued by respondent No.
2 have filed companynter affidavits in the present appeal setting out all the relevant facts on which they wish to rely.
When matters had reached this stage before respondent No.
It appears from the affidavit filed by Mr. Prakash Narain.
Respondent No.
respondent No.
2 and so, he requested respondent No.
2 appeared by his companynsel Mr. Chatterjee, but the appellant was absent.
191 1 e of the Constitution read with section 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 No.
1, the Election Commission of India, under the instructions of the Governor.
Thereafter, the appellant applied to this Court for special leave on January 8, 1965, and special leave was granted to him on January 14, 1965.
1 served a numberice on the appellant forwarding to him a companyy of the letter received by it from respondent No.
Since the Punjab High Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant in limine, neither of the two respondents had an opportunity to file their replies to the allegation made by the appellant in his writ petition.
