UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARISH CHANDRA SINGH RAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On being mentioned, the matter is taken on Board. On 06.05.2016, this Court, after taking note of the order passed on 22.04.2016, had passed an order to which both the parties had agreed. It was also conceded that the floor test should be conducted under the supervision of this Court. Ordinarily, there should not have been any difficulty or occasion to mention. However, submits Mr. Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, that in paragraph 9 and 10 of the order, this Court had stated about the role of the Principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand. To have a complete picture, we think it appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 9 and 10 of the previous order. They read as follows:

(2.) It is urged by Mr. Rohtagi that a communication was sent to the principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand and a reply has been received from the Principal Secretary, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, State of Uttarakhand on 07.05.2016 indicating, inter alia, that there is no post of Principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand but there is a post which is called Secretary, Legislative Assembly and there is another post called the Principal Secretary, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, State of Uttarakhand. Learned Attorney General would submit that this Court desired to have a neutral personality to remain present at the time of voting and an impression was given that the Principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand, is from the cadre of Higher Judicial Service of the State and, therefore, a necessity has arisen for modification of the order.

(3.) Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel, supporting the argument of Mr. Rohtagi, would contend that in a situation like this, there has to be an arrangement by this Court so that voting takes place in the manner the Court has intended. He has pointed out certain aspects of the order to highlight that when situations like this emerge, different steps have been taken by this Court and this is one of such instance.