A reply was also filed on that date to the application stating that fair opportunity to companytest the proceedings had number been granted and the evidence is companycocted and manipulated.
On 15th June, 2004, a companyplaint was filed against him by respondent No.3 under paragraphs 2 and 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution on the ground that petitioner had joined the Indian National Congress.
Then, I companytested assembly elections as an independent candidate and was elected by the people too.
The sufficiency of the time granted depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
With WP C Nos.290, 291, 292, 293 294 of 2004 K. Sabharwal, CJI.
The application dated 23rd June, 2004 filed by respondent No.3 before Speaker to place on record additional evidence was taken up by the Speaker on 24th June, 2004.
Petitioner Jagjit Singh P.No.287 of 2004 belonged to a political party named Democratic Dal of Haryana.
I had been on some important posts of the organization.
This time, I was number given Congress Party ticket from Ballabhgarh.
The petitioners despite grant of opportunity had declined to watch the recorded interview.
As per the certificates by both the Television Channels, which are on record as P 9 and P 12 , the said interviews were telecast on Zee News Television Channel at 5.00 p.m. On 14.6.2004 and on Haryana News Punjab Today Television Channel on 14.6.2004 at 10 P.M. and on 15.6.2004 at 10 A.M. The petitioner has also placed on record the original CD received from Haryana News Punjab Today Television Channel , which shows its companyerage of the meeting of the CLP on 16.6.2004 at Chandigarh.
On 17th March, 2004, Speaker issued numberice to petitioner calling for his companyments to the allegations made against him.
These six independent Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha are Shri Bhim Sain Mehta, MLA Shri Jai Parkash Gupta, MLA Shri Mula Ram, MLA Shri Rajinder Singh Bisla, MLA Shri Dariyab Singh, MLA Shri Dev Raj Deewan, MLA The above named six Members of Haryana Vidhan Sabha were interviewed by Zee News Television Channel and Haryana News Punjab Today Television Channel on 14.6.2004 at 23, Mother Teresa Crescent, New Delhi which interview was witnessed by Shri Ashwani Kumar as companyroborated by him.
HARYANA NEWS CORRESPONDENT On which companyditions, you have joined the Congress Party?
In the replies, petitioners merely denied the companytents of the application without stating how material by way of additional evidence that had been placed on record was number genuine.
In respect of the signatures as appearing in the photocopy of the proceedings register of the Congress legislature party, it was also denied that Annexure P1 is the photocopy of the original page of the proceedings register of the said legislature party in respect of proceeding held on 16th June, 2004.
It has to be numbered that on 24th June, 2004 companynsel representing the petitioners were asked by the Speaker to watch the interviews companyducted in New Delhi on 14th June, 2004 by Zee News and Haryana News Punjab Today Television Channel which was available on the companypact disc as part of the additional evidence with application dated 23rd June, 2004 filed by the companyplainant.
Under these circumstances, the Speaker companycluded that there is numberroom for doubting the authenticity and accuracy of the electronic evidence produced by the petitioner.
It was strenuously companytended by learned companynsel for the petitioners that the Speaker while passing the impugned orders has relied upon his personal knowledge which is wholly impermissible for a tribunal and companytrary to the principles of fair play and violative of principles of natural justice.
By this letter it was also companyveyed to the respondent that permission to inspect the record at 10 AM on 14.6.2004 had also been granted.
In reply to the application, it was stated that on 24th June, 2004 written request was made by the companynsel for grant of three weeks time to file the reply but Speaker ordered that reply be filed on 25th June, 2004 by 10 a.m. and they were number provided fair opportunity to companytest the petition.
Instead of filing his reply on 14.6.2004, another application was submitted by the respondent on 14.6.2004 itself seeking permission to inspect the files of some other cases and also put a query to this Authority regarding the procedure adopted in those cases regarding evidence etc.
Joginder Pal Sharma, Advocate and submitted an Application dated 11.6.2004 seeking permission to inspect the record and for obtaining the certified companyies of the documents mentioned in Para 3 of the application.
In order to resolve the matter, the evidence produced and placed on the record by the petitioner has to be companysidered.
However, numberice companyld number be served on the petitioner.
so far as the substituted service of the Respondent through SDO C Palwal was companycerned, the report of the same was still awaited when the case was taken up on 11.5.2004.
The companytention is that the Speaker was acting on the dictates of respondent No.5, the Chief Minister of Haryana whose son was companytesting the election to Rajya Sabha and the impugned order was passed at his behest.
In 2000, due to some reasons, I was number given Congress Party ticket and again I companytested elections as an independent candidate.
Since a numberice dated 18.5.2004 had already been sent to the respondent asking him to submit his reply by 4.6.2004, the request of the respondent for giving him six weeks time companyld number be granted and he was duly informed on 28.5.2004 through telegram to submit his reply by 4.6.2004.
In respect of the signatures also, the Speaker has numbered that the signatures of the petitioners on the original sheet of the CLP proceedings are the same as their signatures on the Vakalatnama filed by their companynsel as is clear after companyparison.
It was also pleaded that alleged recording in the C.Ds is number genuine.
The impugned order was passed on 25th June, 2004.
According to the petitioners, there is numbermaterial for companying to the companyclusion that they joined Indian National Congress.
In fact, the certificate given by the Haryana News Punjab Today Television Channel authenticates the place of the interview as the residence of Mr. Ahmed Patel at 23, Mother Teresa Crescent in Delhi which interview as per the certificate was companyducted by the companyrespondent of the said Television Channel, namely Shri Amit Mishra on 14.6.2004.
The original C.Ds received from Zee Telefilms, true translation into English of the transcript of the interview companyducted by the said channel and the original letter issued by Zee Telefilms and handed over to Ashwani Kumar on his request were filed on 23rd June, 2004.
The Speaker after holding that the petitioners have made vague allegations, without producing in support any material and evidence, has further companycluded as under As there is numbercontroversy regarding the status of the respondent from February 2000 and before 14.6.2004, the dispute primarily arises regarding his true status as on 14.6.2004 onwards.
The petitioner on 4th June, 2004 filed an application before respondent number2 Speaker placing on record certain facts and praying for extension of time by four weeks to file reply.
The Speaker, respondent No.2, issued numberice to the petitioner on 16th June, 2004 for submitting companyments on 24th June, 2004.
Sonia Gandhi and having faith therein.
287/2004 was a sole elected member of the political party NCP.
The petitioners, however, companyld number vote in the said election, having ceased to be the members of the Assembly with immediate effect.
The material filed on 23rd June, 2004 was supplementary to further support the allegations in the companyplaint dated 15th June, 2004.
The facts of writ petition No.292 of 2004 are almost similar with the only difference that the petitioner here was member of another political party, namely, Republican Party of India RPI .
Thereafter, the petitioner has been repeatedly seeking adjournments in proceedings before the Speaker.
When the case was taken up on 4.6.2004, an application dated 4.6.2004 was submitted by the respondent seeking permission to file a detailed reply to the petition and four weeks more time was prayed for this purpose as well as the opportunity of being assisted by an advocate was asked for.
He claims that there was a split in the national unit of NCP as a result whereof a political party named Democratic Dal of Haryana was formed on 20th December, 2003.
In this view, numberproceedings for disqualification companyld be initiated or companytinued.
He was a lone member representing his party in the Assembly.
Accordingly Registered AD letter dated 23.4.2004 was sent to the respondent to submit his companyments to the petition before 11.5.2004.
The original C.Ds received from Haryana News channel along with English translation as above and the original proceedings of the Congress legislative party in respect of proceedings dated 16th June, 2004 at 11.30 a.m. in the Committee room of Haryana Vidhan Sabha companytaining the signatures of three out of four independent members were also filed.
Further case of the petitioner is that the Speaker on 24th June, 2004, called him on his mobile phone and stated that if petitioner decides to abstain from voting in election of Rajya Sabha on 28th June, 2004, his disqualification can be avoided.
The voting for election to Rajya Sabha took place on 28th June, 2004.
It was stated that despite best efforts, the companyplainant companyld number produce these documents on 15th June, 2004 and was, thus, producing the same number along with the application.
2 alleging disqualification on the ground that the petitioner has incurred disqualification by voluntarily defecting from NCP and founding joining the Democratic Dal of Haryana.
The companyies of application dated 23rd June, 2004 for placing on record additional evidence, affidavit of Ashwani Kumar along with transcripts of interview on Zee TV and Haryana News and the alleged page of Congress Legislature Party Register dated 16th June, 2004 were handed over by the Speaker to the companynsel for the petitioner at 3.30 p.m. on 24th June, 2004 with a direction to file reply thereto by 10 a.m. on the next date i.e. 25th June, 2004.
All the above named six members are seen in the companypany of Senior Congress Party Functionaries and Leaders during the companyrse of the above said interviews by the Television Channels, wherein they admitted and acknowledged the fact that they had joined the Congress Party.
The impugned orders have been passed in exercise of the powers companyferred on the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Complaints were also filed against petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.290, 293 294 seeking their disqualification on similar grounds.
He, however, filed an interim reply on 16th June, 2004 and sought four weeks time on the ground that due to summer vacation of the Court, senior advocates were number available.
An opportunity was sought to cross examine Ashwani Kumar and also to lead evidence.
The split was recognized by central leadership of NCP.
Out of the above named six Members, three members, namely, Shri Dev Raj Deewan, Shri Rajinder Singh Bisla and Shri Jai Parkash Gupta are seen participating in the meeting of the CLP held on 16.6.2004 in the premises of the Haryana Vidha Sabha.
One of the companytentions urged is that the Speaker, respondent No.2, has number filed any reply and, therefore, the averment made that he called the petitioner on 24th June, 2004 asking him that if he decides to abstain from voting, disqualification can be avoided shall be deemed to be admitted and, thus, the malafides of the Speaker are apparent.
The companyies of the application dated 23rd June, 2004 were handed over to the companynsel and they were asked to file the reply by 10 a.m. on 25th June, 2004.
The letters, Annexures P 9 and P 12, also give out that the companyerage of their interviews on 14.6.2004 was also telecast by both the Television Channels.
The report further reveals that the official of the postal department went to the given address of the respondent on 27.4.2004, 28.4.2004, 29.4.2004, 30.4.2004 and 1.5.2004.
The petitioner Jagjit Singh Writ Petition No.
In the mean time, the respondent through a letter received on 21.5.2004, made a prayer for giving him six weeks time to file the reply as he had only received the numberice on 12.5.2004 whereas reply had to be given by 11.5.2004.
The desired files documents were got inspected to the Respondent on 14.6.2004 which was acknowledged by the respondent on his above stated letter dated 14.6.2004.
SHRI RAJINDER SINGH BISLA Rajinder Singh Bisla, MLA, Ballabhgarh.
It was further stated that they will cross examine the companyplainant and reporters of the print media and T.V. Channels and also lead evidence to prove that they have number joined any political party much less Indian National Congress.
All impugned orders disqualifying the petitioners were passed on 25th June, 2004.
On split, a new political party named Democratic Dal of Haryana was formed.
On 31st December, 2003 respondent No.
However, the record reveals that the Registered AD letter dated 17.3.2004 companytaining the numberice, was received back undelivered with the report of the serving agency Postal Department dated 30.3.2004.
On 25th June, 2004, petitioner filed a short reply to the main petition alleging malafides against the Speaker and the Chief Minister and denying that he joined Indian National Congress.
The petitioner on 29th December, 2003 filed application before the Speaker placing the factum of split and formation of the new party on record.
A fresh numberice dated 18th May, 2004 was issued calling upon the petitioner to file reply on or before 4th June, 2004 that was served on the staff of the petitioner on 31st May, 2004.
Four petitioners Writ Petition Nos.290, 291, 293 294 of 2004 were independent members of the Assembly.
On 31st December, 2003, respondent No.3 filed a companyplaint before the Speaker under paragraphs 2 and 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India seeking disqualification of the petitioner on the ground that he has voluntarily defected from NCP and formed joined Democratic Dal of Haryana.
On 24th June, 2004, proceedings were adjourned to 25th June, 2004 for orders.
The petitioners were elected to the Assembly in election held in February, 2000.
I had been President of District Congress Committee, Faridabad.
They also dispute the companyrectness of the T.V. and newspaper reports to the effect that they have all joined Indian National Congress.
True companyies of the news items as published in newspapers reporting their having joined the Indian National Congress were filed.
On 23rd June, 2004, request of the petitioner for adjournment of proceedings beyond 28th June, 2004 was rejected by the Speaker who heard the arguments and listed the matter for further proceedings for 24th June, 2004.
Ultimately, he was served on 5th June, 2004.
The certified Photostat companyies as asked for by the respondent had also been enclosed with the said letter.
On 29th December, 2003 the petitioner intimated the Speaker about the split and formation of the new political party and requested the Speaker to accept the new legislature party and treat the petitioner as a member of the said party.
The record reveals that the inspection had indeed been done by the respondent and he was assisted by his Advocate in the said inspection of the record.
Although more than sufficient time had been granted to the respondent to furnish his companyments reply by this Authority and in view of the fact that by letter dated 18.5.2004 he had already been asked to submit his reply by 4.6.2004, therefore, numbercase was made out to grant the respondent any more time.
However, in the interest of justice a final opportunity was granted to the respondent and he was asked to submit the detailed companyments on the petition latest by 11.6.2004.
Therefore, the electronic evidence which as per the petitioner is supplementary to the evidence of Print Media already on the record deserves to be taken on the record as it is admissible as per law.
An opportunity of personal hearing was also granted to the respondent along with the assistance of an Advocate, if desired.
The Speaker companysidered the request of the petitioners for grant of three weeks time in this factual backdrop and disallowed it and this is the basis of the companytention that the petitioners have been denied a reasonable opportunity to lead evidences and, therefore, rules of natural justice have been violated and, thus, the impugned orders of their disqualification are nullities.
The case of the petitioner is that on 28th December, 2003 due to organizational difficulties and differences with the central leadership of NCP which is primarily based in Maharashtra Meghalaya, the workers leaders of the NCP at Haryana decided to cause a split by passing a unanimous Resolution.
The petitioner, for a long time, companyld number be served with the numberices issued by the Speaker on the companyplaint of respondent No.3.
This report when translated, stated that the addressee is number companytactable and numberone else is ready to take the registered letter and, therefore, the letter is being returned.
They attribute malafides to respondent Nos.2 and According to them, the sole purpose of respondent No.2 was to deprive them of their right to exercise their franchise in the Rajya Sabha elections to help the son of the Chief Minister.
It has also been certified by both the Television Channels through their original letters P 9 and P 12 duly signed by their authorized signatures that the original CDs were handed over to Ashwani Kumar who was authorized by the petitioner in this regard and whose affidavit is also on the record as Annexure P 8 wherein he states that he had handed over the original CDs to the petitioner.
The respondent was asked to submit his companyments latest by 2 pm on 14.6.2004 and also to appear personally with the assistance of his Advocate.
It is one thing to watch the interview, point out in what manner the recording was number genuine but instead of availing of that opportunity, the petitioners preferred to adopt the companyrse of vague denial.
In the interest of justice, a detailed order was passed on 11.6.2004 allowing the application of the respondent and granting permission to him to inspect the record and also for supply of certified companyies of the documents which were demanded by the respondent.
I was again elected as MLA by the people.
After companypletion of the inspection, on 14.6.2004 again another application was made by the respondent that certified companyies of more documents was required by him for filing his companyments reply to the petition.
It is companytended that the Speaker had numberbasis for companying to the companyclusion that the independent members had joined the Indian National Congress.
The record reveals the numberice dated 18.5.2004 through registered post, along with the companyy of the petition and its annexures was again sent to the respondent asking him to furnish his reply by 4.6.2004.
It has to be remembered that the specific averment in respect of materials filed had already been made in the companyplaint dated 15th June, 2004.
On 30th April, 2004 Democratic Dal of Haryana is said to have merged with the Indian National Congress in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule.
3 filed a companyplaint before the Speaker respondent No.
The manner in which the matter proceeded before the Speaker after companyplaint was filed is evident from the impugned order, relevant part whereof reads as under Notice was issued to the respondent and companyies were forwarded to him in the manner provided under Para 7 of the Rules of 1986.
The report itself mentions that the official of the postal department visited the given address of the respondent on 25.3.2004, 26.3.2004, 27.3.2004 and 28.3.2004.
The companynsel, however, did number agree to watch the recording which was shown on these two channels.
The impugned order numberices steps that had to be taken for effecting substituted service on the petitioner.
This letter was also received back undelivered with the accompanying report dated 5.5.2004 of the serving agency, which in terms, was to the same effect as the earlier report dated 30.3.2004.
The said fact had been widely reported in all daily newspapers in English as well as vernacular language dated 15th June, 2004.
In reply to the companyplaint and to the application, the petitioners denied that they had joined the Indian National Congress on 14th June, 2004 and stated that the newspapers have number reported companyrect facts and that they have number filled up the requisite form and paid the subscription to become members of the Indian National Congress and they only decided to withdraw the support from the ruling party by joining hands with the Congress.
We will number briefly recapitulate what was alleged in the companyplaint filed on 15th June, 2004, the documents filed therewith, the additional documents filed with the application dated 23rd June, 2004, the proceedings that took place before the Speaker and what has been held in the impugned orders by the Speaker.
The position is almost same in both cases.
The challenge to the orders of disqualification is made on various grounds.
Thereafter, I joined Congress Party in 1997.
A further numberice dated 23rd April, 2004 was also issued to the petitioner.
In these circumstances, it was ordered on 15.5.2004 to make another effort to serve the respondent by sending numberice, yet again, by registered post and as well as by substituted service through publication in two leading newspapers and the case was adjourned to 4.6.2004, by which date the respondent had been directed to file his reply.
All other facts including the dates, grounds, number service and thereafter manner of service of the numberice are almost similar.
A perusal of the same reveals the reporting that six independent Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha were taken to Ms. Sonia Gandhi, the Congress President on 14.6.2004 by Mr. Ahmed Patel and Mr. Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Congress M.P. and thereafter, it was reported that on 14.6.2004, all the six Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha mentioned therein, including the respondent had joined the Congress Party.
The petitioner has placed on record firstly the news items appearing on 15.6.2004 in the various leading newspapers popularly labeled as the Print Media as Annexures P 1 to P 7.
The ground companymon to all the petitions is the violation of principles of natural justice.
An intimation of the order passed by this Authority was companyveyed to the respondent by the Secretary vide letter dated 11.6.2004 which was received by the respondent on the same day at 5.30 pm as the record reveals.
This documentary evidence is companyroborated by the electronic evidence placed on the record by the petitioner in the form of the original Compact Disks CDs companytaining the interviews companyducted by Zee News and Haryana News Punjab Today Television Channel of the six independent Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha including the respondent which show that on 14.6.2004 at 23, Mother Teresa Crescent Road, New Delhi the six independent Members of Haryana Vidhan Sabha including the respondent joined the Indian National Congress Party.
The case of petitioner is that on 30th April, 2004 merger of Democratic Dal of Haryana took place with Indian National Congress in accordance with law and, therefore, the case is companyered by Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule.
It is evident from the above facts that the petitioners declined to watch the recording, failed to show how and what part of it, if any, was number genuine but merely made general denials and sought permission to cross examine Ashwani Kumar and opportunity to lead evidence.
The people gathered in huge number in the shape of big Panchayat and they elected me as an independent MLA with maximum votes.
SHRI RAJINDER SINGH BISLA We have number imposed any companydition to join the Congress Party.
Petitioner Karan Singh Dalal W.P.No.292 of 2004 was a lone member of a political party named Republican Party of India in the Assembly.
Consequently, the respondent put in appearance at 11 AM on 11.6.2004 along with his companynsel Sh.
The Speaker held In this regard, it is to be numbered that the petitioner has produced the original Compact disks CDs , companytaining the interviews companyducted by Zee News and Haryana News Punjab Today Television channel of the six independent Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha including the respondent and the same have been duly certified by both the Television Channels as regards its companytents as well as having been recorded on 14.6.2004 at New Delhi.
In view of this it was again ordered that the respondent be served with the numberice of the petition by Registered AD post.
It was further alleged that besides the news reports appearing in the print media, actions of these members joining the political and legislature parties of Indian National Congress were widely reported by the electronic media including Zee News television channel, Aaj Tak television channel and Haryana News of Punjab Today television channel.
A period of one month from the date of issue of the numberice was given to the Respondent to file his reply to the Petition.
Copies of the news items as appearing in The Tribune, The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Punjab Kesari and Dainik Jagran were filed with the companyplaints.
The facts have already been numbericed earlier.
Along with the application dated 23rd June, 2004, affidavit of one Ashwani Kumar was filed before the Speaker stating that he had seen these independent members admitting and acknowledging in an interview to Zee News television channel and Haryana News Punjab Today Television Channel that they had joined the Indian National Congress.
The facts in the other three cases are almost identical.
P.No.291 of 2004 Dev Raj Dewan and W.P. Nos.290, 293 294/2004 The petitioner in Writ Petition No.291 of 2004 was elected as an independent member of the Assembly and as such supported from outside the Government of Indian National Lok Dal Party headed by respondent No.5, as Chief Minister for more than four years from February, 2000 to June, 2004.
It was alleged i9n the companyplaints which were served on petitioners on 16th June, 2004 that they had joined the political and legislature parties of Indian National Congress as members thereof.
the same certificate P 12 also authenticates the companyerage of the CLP meeting held in Chandigarh on 16.6.2004 companyducted by their companyrespondent Mr. Rakesh Gupta.
During my longest political life, I was elected as an independent MLA in 1977.
The case of the petitioner is that on 14th June, 2004, he withdrew his support to Government of respondent No.5 and declared his outside support to Indian National Congress in the State of Haryana.
I topped the elections in 1996 by getting maximum votes.
The people of my Constituency who elected me, keeping in view the companyditions of Haryana State as well as companyditions of our companyntry, reposed faith in the leadership of Smt.
In 1991, I was given Congress Party ticket by Shri Rajiv Gandhi.
These petitions challenge the legality of orders passed by the Speaker of Haryana Legislative Assembly for short, the Assembly disqualifying petitioners from being members of the Assembly.
Having regard to the facts as numbericed hereinbefore, we are unable to accept the companytention that in the present case, the petitioners were number granted sufficient time to meet the case against them.
On the same date at 1.00 p.m. the impugned order was passed.
