JUDGMENT 1. The aforesaid two special writ appeals came to be filed by the appellants, noted hereinabove, essentially seeking to challenge the order dated 30.07.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.8056/2020 and 8004/2020. Following orders were passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 30.07.2020:- S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8056/2020:- "Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application to the respondents. Rule is made returnable by 11.08.2020. Notices may be given "dasti" to the learned counsel for the petitioners for service." S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8004/2020:- "Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application baring respondent No.9. Rule is made returnable by 11.08.2020. Notices may be given "dasti" to the learned counsel for the petitioner for service." 2. Notices of both the writ-appeals were issued to the Hon'ble Speaker (respondent No.1) vide order dated 05.08.2020. 3. Mr. S.C.Misra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant Bahujan Samaj Party as well as Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Mr. Madan Dilawar submitted that though they had made oral submissions before the Hon'ble Single Judge seeking 'ex-parte' stay of the order of the Hon'ble Speaker impugned before the learned Single Judge, but the Hon'ble Single Judge did not find favour with such a prayer and merely directed notices to be issued on the writ-applications as well as stay-applications and fixed the next date to 11.08.2020. 4. Mr. Misra, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that although directions were issued for service of notices on the respondents "dasti", but since private respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are not available at their official residences and are learnt to be residing in a hotel at Jaisalmer, they have been unable to serve the said private respondents and there is every possibility that on the next date fixed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the private respondents may avoid service. 5. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Hon'ble Speaker (respondent No.1) raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ-appeals. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.Sogani & Ors. Vs. 5. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Hon'ble Speaker (respondent No.1) raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ-appeals. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.Sogani & Ors. Vs. Akhil Bharatiya Bank of Rajasthan Karmchari Sangh & Ors.,2000 SCCOnlineRaj 53 , in support of his contention that the present writ-appeals are not maintainable and in particular he drew attention of the Court to the finding arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court in answer to Question No.2 and in which conclusion in para 26 is quoted herein below:- "26. From reading of the operative portion of order impugned quoted hereinabove, we are satisfied that by impugned order, learned Single Judge has not determined the rights and liabilities of the parties finally, therefore, no special appeal lies against such an order under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. In our considered opinion, the order impugned under appeal dated 27.9.99, is not a judgment within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, therefore, the appeal is not entertainable. The objection of the office of the Registry of the Court dated 1.10.99, to the effect that the instant special appeal which is preferred against interim order, is not maintainable, is hereby sustained and upheld." 6. Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Advocate on the other hand, submitted that the present writ-appeals are maintainable and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khemji Vs. Jayaben D.Kania & Anr., (1981) 4 SCC 8 . He submits that whether a particular order decides the important rights would depend upon the nature of the order. The principle is that wherever the controversy affects the valuable rights of the parties and the trial Judge decides the same, it must be treated as a judgment. He also referred to Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. He further submits that judgment can be of three kinds:- (i) Final judgment (ii) preliminary judgment and (iii) Interlocutory judgment. Mr. Salve submits that in the judgment of Rajasthan High Court, which Mr. Sibal has cited, it was not a case where interim relief was refused. 7. He also referred to Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. He further submits that judgment can be of three kinds:- (i) Final judgment (ii) preliminary judgment and (iii) Interlocutory judgment. Mr. Salve submits that in the judgment of Rajasthan High Court, which Mr. Sibal has cited, it was not a case where interim relief was refused. 7. The Court in the course of hearing suggested to the learned counsel for the parties that notices on the private respondents may be served through Secretary of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. 8. To this suggestion, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate raised objection and submitted that since the Government of India has issued instructions to the authorities concerned to the effect that Courts of law should not seek to serve a legal process, civil or criminal, on members of Parliament through the Speaker of the Secretariat, the appropriate procedure is for the summons to be served direct on the members concerned outside the precincts of Parliament i.e. at their residence or at some other place. 9. After hearing learned counsel for respective parties physically as well as through Video Conferencing, as noted hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be best sub-served by the following directions:- (i) The appellants are directed to take out the notices of S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.8056/2020 and 8004/2020 for service by Special Messenger, to ensure service on the private respondents on or before 08.08.2020. The District Judge, Jaisalmer is directed to provide all necessary assistance to the Special Messenger to effect service of such notices, and if required, the District Judge may seek necessary assistance of the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer for effecting service on the private respondents who are said to be residing at Jaisalmer. (ii) We further direct the appellants/writ-petitioners to publish a notice in daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika', Barmer-Jaisalmer Edition. The notice shall indicate the directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 30.07.2020. (iii) We make it clear that the directions which we are issuing are in the aid of directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge and keeping the serious consequences pleaded before us by the appellants' Counsel. We remain confident that the Hon'ble Single Judge will deal with the matter appropriately. (iii) We make it clear that the directions which we are issuing are in the aid of directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge and keeping the serious consequences pleaded before us by the appellants' Counsel. We remain confident that the Hon'ble Single Judge will deal with the matter appropriately. (iv) We remain confident that the Hon'ble Single Judge will hear and dispose of the stay applications filed by the appellants on the same day in accordance with law and without, in any manner, being prejudiced by any directions/observations issued by us hereinabove. (v) The contentions raised by either parties on the issue of maintainability of the writ-appeals are left open for consideration at appropriate time/case. 10. Both the writ-appeals are accordingly disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.