Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1992 DIGILAW 354 (SC)

M. Manihar Singh v. Union of India

1992-04-10

J.S.VERMA, K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, S.C.AGRAWAL

body1992
JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. M.C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate, has contended that by the subsequent conduct as detailed in the affidavit filed yesterday by the petitioners, it is manifest that the respondent No.1 is refusing to respect the orders of this Court and he was riot sincere when he made the statement in the affidavit filed on 30.3.1992. 2. Mr. Attorney Gener'il has supported Mr. Bhandare and has suggested that in the circumstances the respondent No.1 should be asked to be personally present in the Court. He emphasised the fact that the orders of this Court have to be obeyed by everybody including all the constitutional authorities. He has urged that this Court should give a further direction to the respondent No.1 to permit the petitioners to attend the Assembly when it is convened and to vote as also should give a separate direction in regard to the payment of the allowance etc. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar states on behalf of respondent No.1 that the respondent No.1 had never intended to disobey the orders of this Court nor had taken any action inconsistent with the orders of this Court. But in order to avoid any practical difficulty in the implementation of this-Court's orders respondent No.1 has required the seven petitioners to signify their status with reference to the Party they belong to for the purpose of allotting seats to them in the House. The position as was prior to the passing of the disqualification order against them by him on 22.7.1990 shall be restored. 4. Mr. Bhandare states that the petitioners are ready to sit anywhere in the House. Mr. Arvind Kumar on behalf of respondent no.1 states that in the circumstances they will be treated as independent Members for the purposes of the seating arrangements and they will be allowed i to vote as Members of the House. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled to enter the Assembly, to participate in the proceedings and to vote as Members of the House, and their position as was prior to the disqualification order against them on 22.7.1990 stands restored by virtue of the Court's order/judgment. 5. With reference to the payment of the monetary benefit to the petitioners Mr. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled to enter the Assembly, to participate in the proceedings and to vote as Members of the House, and their position as was prior to the disqualification order against them on 22.7.1990 stands restored by virtue of the Court's order/judgment. 5. With reference to the payment of the monetary benefit to the petitioners Mr. Arvind Kumar has stated that the respondent No.I has agreed that the payment should be made to them expeditiously but since he is not concerned in the matter he has not been able to pass any orders and it is the Disbursement Officer who has to take necessary steps. He, however, indicates his agreement in express terms that payment should be made immediately. Under the circumstances, we direct that the Disbursement Officer shall make the payment without any delay and report to this Court that the payments have already been made. 6. The case is adjourned to 29.4.1992 to report compliance. C.A. 924, 925, 926, 929/92. 7. Mr. Bhandare, learned senior Advocate for the appellants states that is view of the newspaper report as per Annexurc VIII the appellants are apprehensive that they shall not be permitted to enter the Assembly Hall and participate in the proceedings when the Assembly is reconvened. Learned counsel for respondent No.] states that the appellants shall be permitted to enter into the Assembly Hall, to participate in the proceedings and to vote. In view of this statement no further orders need be passed. 8. Adjourned to 29.4.1992. C.A. 927 & 928/92 9. It is stated on behalf of the appellants that in spite of the interim order passed by this Court on 17.2.1992 a further order appears to have been passed on 4.3.1992 as contained in Annexure VII under the signature of the Deputy Secretary stating that the disqualification of the appellants had been made as far back as on 17.2.1992 and in that view they are declared, to be disqualified Members. Learned counsel has contended that in view of the interim order of this Court dated 27.1.1992 this order dated 4.3.1992 should not have been passed. It is also stated that the appellants have no information at all about any order of disqualification having been passed by the Speaker on 17.2.1992 and that they learnt about it for the first time on 7.4.1992 when a notice was served on them. It is also stated that the appellants have no information at all about any order of disqualification having been passed by the Speaker on 17.2.1992 and that they learnt about it for the first time on 7.4.1992 when a notice was served on them. They deny that there was any order of disqualification passed on 17.2.1992 or on any other date. Mr.Bhattacharya representing the respondent No.1 does not accept the case of the appellants. 10. Having considered the matter we are inclined to issue an interim order at this stage subject to further orders to be passed by this Court in the appeal. Accordingly, we direct that the operation of the impugned order which is claimed on behalf of respondent No.1 to have been passed on 17.2.1992 purporting to disqualify the appellants and the operation of the order dated 4.3.1992 shall remain stayed until further orders. As a result, the appellants shall be allowed to enter the Assembly Hall and participate in the' proceedings. 11. Mr. Bhandare prays that a clear direction may be issued for permitting the appellants to vote. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that as a necessary corollary to the above interim order the appellants shall have a right to participate in the proceedings of the House and to vote and there is no ground for the apprehension expressed by Mr. Bhandare. 12. Adjourned to 29.4.1992. W.P.(C) 232/92:. Rule Nisi. 13. Issue notice to the respondents returnable by 29.4.1992. 14. In the meantime the operation of the impugned order dated 2.3.1992 as contained in Annexure `F' shall remain stayed. Adjourned to 29.4.1992. C.P. 82/92. 15. The case is adjourned to 29.4.1992. 16. In the meantime the operation of the order dated 2.3.1992 as contained in Annexure `H' shall remain stayed.