SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. J JAYALALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 2.7.1993 passed by the learned single judge in W.P".Nos.6094 and 6095 of 1993.

(2.) THE appellant is the second respondent in the writ petitions. THE first respondent is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. THE second respondent herein is the first respondent in the writ petitions. THE Election Commission of India has been impleaded in the writ appeal pursuant to the orders dated 7.10.1993 and 20.10.1993, at the instance of the first respondent passed in C.M.P.No.l3873 of l993.

(3.) BEFORE filing the writ appeal in question, the appellant had approached the Supreme Court as against the order of the learned single judge in question in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10189-90 of 1993. The Supreme Court directed the appellant to lodge an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court within two weeks from 20.8.1993 and in that event, that appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone and the same be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, not later than six weeks from the lodgement of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal came up before us for admission and also for condonation of delay in filing on 1.9.1993. We condoned the delay, admitted the appeal and directed it to be posted for final hearing on 28.9.1993 as both the sides agreed that, that date would be convenient to them. The hearing of the appeal was completed on 30.9.1993 and the judgment was reserved. However, on the very next day, Ordinance No.32 of 1993 came to be promulgated by the President of India, amending the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 1991. As the Ordinance had a bearing on the question of doctrine of necessity raised in the case, we thought it necessary to hear both the sides as to the effect of Ordinance No.32 of 1993 on the question of doctrine of necessity. In addition to this, the first respondent also filed, as pointed out above, two petitions, viz., C.M.P.Nos.13873 and 13874ofl993. Accordingly, the appeal was posted on 7.10.1993. Notice was issued to the Election Commission. Both sides agreed to address further arguments on 20.10.1993. BEFORE that date, the Election Commission was also served. It put in appearance through a counsel and filed its counter-affidavit. It was impleaded as 3rd respondent on 20.10.1993. Further arguments were addressed by both sides on 20.10.1993.