O LOHARII Vs. SPEAKER MANIPUR L A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by initially three writ petitioners with the prayer to quash the Bulletin issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly on 1st July' 95. Subsequently, the petitioner Shri Hangkhanpao withdrew from the writ petition and only the remaining two writ petitioners continued to prosecute this case.

(2.) The case of the remaining two writ petitioners in the Civil Rule is that they contested the election to the Manipur Legislative Assembly in Feb'95 as candidates of the Janata Dal political party. Since no political party secured an absolute majority in the Manipur Legislative Assembly, a coalition Government in Manipur was proposed and out of the seven MLA's of the Janata Dal political party who had been elected to the Assembly four MLA's including the remaining two petitioners split from the Janata Dal political party and formed a separate group called the Progressive Janata Dal with the petitioner No. 2, Shri Basant Kumar Wangkhem as its President. The split and the formation of the new political party Progressive Janata Dal were recognised by the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly in the Bulletin dated 23rd March 95 issued by him. Thereafter, the Progressive Janata Dal joined the Congress (I) party to form the Government in Manipur. On 16.6.95, an emergency meeting was held of the four Progressive Janata Dal legislators and they unanimously resolved to a merger of the Progressive Janata Dal with the Congress (I) to strengthen the Congress (I) led Government. In the minutes of the said emergency meeting, it was indicated that the merger of the Progressive Janata Dal with the Congress (I) should be formally agreed upon in writing by the Manipur Pradesh Congress (I) Committee, for short the MPCC (I), and the All India Congress Committee, for short the AICC (I) and that the merger would be subject to certain terms and conditions. The said minutes of the meeting of the Progressive Janata Dal legislators were sent to Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, the then President of AICC (I) at New Delhi, by the petitioner No. 2 along with his letter dated 20.6.95 requesting the President of the AICC (I) to accept the proposal so that necessary arrangement for merger could be taken immediately. Thereafter on 29.6.95, the petitioner No. 2 sent another letter to Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, President AICC (I) at New Delhi stating therein that before the actual merger of the Progressive Janata Dal with the Congress (I) takes place, the AICC (I) may give its consent regarding the acceptance of the terms mentioned in the minutes of the meeting of the Progressive Janata Dal legislators held on 16.6.95 and making it clear that unless the terms mentioned in the minutes of the meeting were accepted in to-to or otherwise negotiated the merger will not be effected. Despite the said letter of the petitioner No. 2 the President of the MPCC (I) issued a press release at about 3 P.M. on 1.7.95 to the effect that the President of the AICC (I) had allowed the merger of the Progressive Janata Dal with the Indian National Congress (I). Immediately thereafter the petitioner No, 2 addressed a letter dated 1.7.95 to the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly informing him that there was no such merger as claimed by the President of the MPCC (I) in the press release dated 1.7.95 and requested him not to take cognizance of the unilateral press release issued by the MPCC (I) and that the Progressive Janata Dal shall remain a seperate political party in the Assembly. Notwithstanding the said letter of the petitioner No. 2 the impugned Bulletin dated 1.7.95 was issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly on the direction of the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly stating that the President of the AICC (I) allowed the merger of the Progressive Janata Dal with the Congress (I) and that the strength of the Congress (I) MLAs in the Manipur Legislative Assembly had consequently increased.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr. Nilamani Singh assisted by Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned Bulletin dated 1.7.95 on various grounds. They contended that the copy of the minutes of the emergency meeting of the Progressive Janata Dal legislators held on 16.6.95 annexed to the Civil Rule as Annexure-A/2 would show that they agreed to the merger of the Progressive Janata Dal with the Congress (I) subject to the certain conditions. The condition mentioned in clauses (b) was that a formal reception of the Progressive Janata Dal legislators and the workers of the Block and District level would be arranged by the MPCC (I) and some of the members of the Progressive Janata Dal would be accommodated at the PCC, DCC and BCC level but this condition had not been fulfilled by the MPCC (I). Mr. Nilamani Singh cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All Party Hill Leaders Conference, Shillong Vs. Capt. W.A. Sangma, AIR 1977 SC 2155 in support of his submission that a political party does not only comprise of its leaders but also all those people who constitute its membership and contended that a mere understanding between the leaders of two political parties does not result in a merger unless the cadres of the two political parties also merge with each other. According to Mr. Nilamani Singh, the merger of the Progressive Janata Dal party with the Congress (I) would have taken place only after the workers of the Progessive Janata Dal at the Block and District levels were absorbed in the Congress (I) party. But since this has not taken place the impugned bulletin dated 1.7.95 issued under the authority of the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly to the effect that the Progressive Janata Dal has merged with the Indian National Congress (I) is illegal and was liable to be set aside by this Court.