ADELBERT NONGRUM Vs. SPEAKER, MEGHALAYA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by a member of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly (MLA) ("the appellant"). On 15/2/2024, he presented a Special Motion before the Speaker which was disallowed by him under Rule 130A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Legislature. The subject-matter of the Special Motion was a part of the CAG report on the social and economic sectors for the year ending 31/3/2022. It deprecated an expenditure of Rs.156.14 crore made by the government company, Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Limited (MePDCL) in awarding contracts under the Saubhagya scheme. The scheme was conceived by the Central government but its implementation was with the State government through the project implementing agency, Saubhagya. The fund was Central. The State government, in turn, implemented the scheme through MePDCL a body corporate controlled by it. By a terse letter dtd. 19/2/2024, the Commissioner and Secretary of the Assembly informed the appellant that the Special Motion had been "disallowed" by the Speaker as it was under consideration by the Public Accounts Committee. We do not know why in the body of the letter a reference was made to the Chief Minister as if the information was derived from him. Whether the report was considered by the Public Accounts Committee or not ought to have been within the knowledge of the Speaker. Learned counsel for the appellant uses this reference to the Chief Minister to attack the bonafides of the Speaker, submitting that the Speaker was acting on the dictates of the Chief Minister.

(2.) We do not think so. It appears that quite unnecessarily, he sought confirmation of this information from the Chief Minister which was provided to him.

(3.) The appellant filed the instant writ petition [WP (C) No.99 of 2024] in this Court, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Speaker reflected in the letter dtd. 19/2/2024. According to him, his request, for the Special Motion presented by him to be tabled, ought to have been acceded to and the Motion deliberated upon in the House. There was, according to him an infringement of his right as member of the legislative assembly, by the Speaker. The Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to compel the Speaker to table the Motion, it was contended. The writ petition was heard extensively by a learned single judge of this Court. Two principal grounds were made out before his lordship.