KHUMUKCHAM JOYKISHAN SINGH Vs. HONOURABLE SPEAKER, MLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate with S.G Hasnain, learned Senior Advocate and Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the applicants in all the applications; Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate appearing for the Speaker and Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondents in all the applications.

(2.) The above applications have been filed by applicants/ petitioners praying, inter-alia, for restraining the private respondents from entering into the premises of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. Since all the applications are identical, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) It has been submitted by Shri Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants/ petitioners that although the applications were filed before the Hon'ble Speaker as back as on 08-11-2018, notices were issued only on 10-07-2019; that despite a number of opportunities being granted to the private respondents herein, no replies were filed by them and only on 03-02-2020 and that too, after the judgment being delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. The Hon'ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly and ors., CA No.547 of 2020 etc., the preliminary objections were filed; that the Hon'ble Speaker being a party respondent in Shri K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), knew very well that he was bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitions ought to have been decided by him within three months as directed; that the failure on the part of the Hon'ble Speaker to decide the petitions within three months from the date on which the judgment was intimated to him, is nothing but legally malafide as observed in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, (1992) Supp (2) SCC 651 and that a preliminary objection similar to the one raised herein, has already been rejected by the Hon'ble Speaker himself in Shri K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). On the other hand, Shri Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, the learned Advocate appearing for the Speaker has submitted that since the office of the Manipur Legislative Assembly has issued a notification dated 03-06-2020 informing that the order on the issue relating to preliminary objections, will be pronounced by the Speaker on 06-06- 2020, the hearing of the present applications may be deferred to await the outcome thereof. The order dated 18-03-2020 was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercising its power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and since such power is not conferred on the High Court, no order restraining the private respondents from entering into the premises of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, can be passed by this Court. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi and ors., (2015) 12 SCC 381, it has been submitted by him that this Court is not empowered to pass such an interim order. Any order passed by this Court allowing the present applications, may tantamount to disqualifying the private respondents for all practical purposes. In line with and in support of his submissions, it has been submitted by Shri H.S Paonam, Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondents that the orders passed by the Speaker granting opportunities, on some occasions, to the private respondents for filing objections were not questioned by anyone before the appropriate forum. The order dated 18-03-2020 was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping in mind the extra-ordinary circumstances which are not there in the present cases and moreover, there is no ground at all on the basis of which the prayers made in the applications can be granted by this Court. In view of the law laid down in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (supra), this Court cannot grant the relief as prayed for by the applicants. The present applications are absolutely misconceived and are liable to be rejected by this Court. In his reply, it has been submitted by Shri Kapil Sibal that the decision rendered in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (supra) has been referred to and interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) that it did not interdict judicial review in aid of the Speaker arriving at a prompt decision as to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.