NAND KUMAR SAI Vs. SPEAKER/CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P/3) and 29.07.2003 passed by the respondent No. 1 and further, to disqualify the respondent No. 2 to 13 from the membership of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly and also to disqualify them from contesting the ensuing assembly elections for the period of six years.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was the member of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly and leader of opposition, at the relevant time, has filed the instant petition challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No. 1 upon the representation of the respondent No. 2 to 13 dated 20.12.2001 (Annexure P/1) and also by two other MLAs viz. Charan Singh Manjhi and Rajindra Pal Singh to the Speaker, Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly to register a new party formed by them as "Chhattisgarh Vikas Party" and also the order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P/11) passed by the respondent No. 1 on the application made by the petitioner, on 18.06.2002 (Annexure P/9) which was also rejected by order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P/11) by the respondent No. 1 as Chairman of the Tribunal, holding that the respondents, as aforestated, have not violated the provisions of Schedule 10 of the Constitution.

(3.) IT is submitted that out of 90 seats of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly, 35 members were of BJP and 45 seats belonged to Indian National Congress (for short 'the Congress') party. The respondent No. 2 to 13 formed a new political party and made representation to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to recognize the newly formed party by representation dated 20.12.2001 (Annexure P/1). The said party was subsequently merged with the Congress Party. The Speaker has passed the order on the representation on 21.12.2001 (Annexure P/3) without affording any opportunity of hearing to the BJP. Thereafter, the petition was filed by the petitioner which was also rejected subsequently by impugned order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P/11).