Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1992 DIGILAW 437 (SC)

M. Manihar Singh v. Union of India

1992-05-07

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

body1992
JUDGMENT : Mr. Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel for Dr. H. Boro babu Singh states that the orders of revocation referred to by him and mentioned in proceeding of this Court of 5.5.1992 have been published and he has received a Fax message in this regard. He wants time to file in affidavit of the respondent No.1 along with the relevant documents as annexures latest by Wednesday (13.5.92). As requested, the cases are adjourned to 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday (13.5.92) when the affidavit should be ready. 2. Mr. Bhandare complains that although revocation orders have been passed with respect to the 7 legislators, petitioners in Contempt Petition No.359 of 1991, no such orders have been passed in favour of the other 8 appellants in the pending Civil Appeals. Mr. Arvind Kutlar states that in view of the interim order of stay of this Court which is operating no further steps have been taken but as a result of the said stay order, these appellants are also entitled to treat themselves as not disqualified and they will be allowed to enjoy all their rights in the Assembly on that basis. He accordingly says that this assurance should dispel any doubt or suspicion in the minds of the appellants. The stand is correct but we, however, clarify the position that our stay order shall not come in the way of the respondent No.l in passing an order of revocation if he so chooses to do. 3. So far as the Writ Petition No.232/1992 is concerned Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya opposing the writ petition states on behalf of his client Sri N. Hera Singh that the latter has assumed charge of the office of-the Secretary and is acting as such at present. We have pointed out to Mr. Bhattacharya that if Sri. Hera Singh is claiming to be the acting Secretary during the period that our stay order is operative he may be acting in violation of this Court's order and may be liable for the same and it will be for Mr. Bhattacharya to explain the position correctly to him without delay so that he may promptly make ammends. 4. All the cases are adjourned to Wednesday next.