STATE OF KERALA Vs. R SUDARSAN BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the importance of the question arising for decision in this appeal a Division Bench of this Court before which the Writ Appeal came up for hearing earlier referred the case to a Full Bench and that is how the matter has come up before us now.

(2.) The Writ Appeal is by the State of Kerala against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court finding no ground for review of an order directing issue of notice to the respondents in the Original Petition including respondents 2 and 3, the Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly and the Secretary, Kerala Legislative Assembly respectively.' When the Original Petition came up for admission before the learned single Judge notice was directed to be issued, to the respondents. It was then that the 1st respondent, the State, appeared in the case and filed a statement. The State made no motion as such. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the Court must cancel its order directing issue of notice to the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly as well as its Secretary. The learned Judge by the order under the appeal held that there are questions which called for examination in the Original Petition and such examination cannot be at the admission stage but can only be after giving an opportunity to the respondents to have their say. The learned Judge particularly found that on the averments made and the grounds raised in the writ petition he was satisfied that the petitioner's case required further examination. As a consequence of the order so passed by the learned Judge the original order directing issue of notice to respondents would operate. It is this that is taken by the State in appeal.

(3.) We must mention here that the petitioners in the Original Petition alone have been made respondents in the appeal. Neither the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly nor the Secretary of the Assembly is a party to the appeal so much so it is agreed on all sides that whatever decision is reached here will not be binding on the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Secretary of the Assembly though a decision on the question in issue would concern them and them only and not the State. The State, the Advocate General contends, is in the position of an informant bringing certain facts to the notice of the Court which facts, according to the Advocate General, must persuade the Court not to issue notice to the Speaker. We are mentioning this here particularly because there is a preliminary objection raised by the respondents in the appeal that in the circumstances the appeal itself is not maintainable in law.