J.Jayalalitha moved two Writ Petitions Nos.6094 and 6095 of 1993, the first for a writ of prohibition against Shri Seshan number to deal with the petition forwarded to him by the Governor as she had a reasonable apprehension that he was biased in favour of Dr.Swamy and the second for a declaration that she had number incurred the disqualification as alleged by Dr.Swamy.
Both these writ petitions came up for disposal before a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
This Ordinance was companyverted into an Act Act No.4 of 1994 with the same title on 4.1.1994 .
Consequently Dr.Swamy preferred an appeal, being Writ Appeal No.956 of 1993, in the High Court of Madras.
6094 of 1993 by giving the following direction A writ of prohibition is issued to the first respondent Mr. T.N. Seshan from in any manner dealing with, hearing, adjudicating upon or disposing of the memorandum dated 2.10.1992 filed by the second respondent Dr. Subramanian Swamy and forwarded by the Governor of Tamil Nadu to the first respondent.
This Court granted Special Leave to Appeal and hence we have before us this Civil Appeal No.504 of 1994.
4095 of 1993 is companycerned, Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the order and decision of the learned Single Judge and dismissed Writ Petition No.4095 of 1993.
The President of India promulgated an Ordinance No.32 of 1993 entitled the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Condition of Service Amendment Ordinance, 1993 which was published in the Gazette of India on 1.10.1993.
On this line of reasoning, on the question of relief to be granted, the Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal and modified he order in writ petition No.
This Court, however, did number entertain the said two petitions and by its order dated 20.8.1993 directed the petitioner to move the Division Bench in appeal.
AHMADI, CJI.
This is an appeal preferred by the Election Commission of India and Shri T.N. Seshan, the Chief Election Commissioner, when the former was a single member companymission against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras dated 15.11.1993 by which, reversing the view taken by the learned single Judge of the High Court dated 2.7.1993, it held that in view of the promulgation of Ordinance Ordinance No.32 of 1993 the doctrine of necessity was numbermore attracted and applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Election Commission of India as well as Shri T.N. Seshan felt aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench in the appeal arising out of Writ Petition No.6094 of 1993 extracted earlier.
