SUSHANTA KUMAR CHAND Vs. SPEAKER ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 8 petitioners styling themselves as members of the Samajwadi Yubak sabha (Utkal) applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus when they were detained in custody in the Bhubaneswar sub-jail under a warrant issued by the Speaker of the Orissa Legislative Assembly.

(2.) THE Orissa Legislative Assembly was in session when the petitioners got into the legislative assembly hall and submitted to the Speaker and the members of the assembly a printed letter alleging several acts of misconduct, maladministration, corruption and high-handed acts of excesses through utilisation of police force for suppressing civil liberties. The petitioners shouted slogans and disturbed the proceedings. They were taken into custody and ultimately they were sentenced to 7 days' simple imprisonment. Under a warrant issued by the Speaker, they were lodged to custody with opposite party No. 2. The warrant was to the following effect: "whereas the Orissa Legislative Assembly has decided at its meeting held on the 8th October, 1969, that the follow-ing named persons be sentenced to simple imprisonment till the 15th October, 1969 for committing the offence of the contempt of the Orissa Legislative assembly, it is accordingly ordered that the persons named below be detained in the Bhubaneswar Jail till the 15th October. 1969. Sri Susant Kumar Chand, sri Brajakishore Tripathi, Sri Purna Chandra Sahu, sri Susant Kumar Mohanty, sri Hrushikesh Chain. Sri Girija Prasad Misra. Sri Naren Sinha. Sri Subodh Kumar Mohanty * * * * * the writ application was presented in this Court on 10-10-1969 and the petitioners were asked to be released on bail. The application was admitted for hearing, but prayer for bail was rejected.

(3.) THE sentence of 7 days' imprisonment has been suffered by the petitioners and they have been released. The petition for habeas corpus has thus become infructuous. Normally such a petition should have been dismissed as not maintainable on that score. Mr. Murty, However, raised an interesting question and wanted us to resolve the dispute. According to him when the application was admitted for hearing but bail was refused, it was known that long before hearing of the petition, the petitioners would be out of jail having served sentence. Accordingly, Mr. Murty contends that the writ petition was pursued until now only to obtain a judgment from this Court on the point raised by him.