KULDEEP BISHNOI Vs. SPEAKER, HARYANA VIDHAN SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 9.11.2009 and 10.11.2009 (Annexures P-4 and P-7 respectively), as well as sought the issuance of a direction to Respondent No. 1 to decide five disqualification petitions, filed by him, against Respondents No. 3 to 7 within a period of three months.

(2.) The Petitioner asserts that private Respondents No. 3 to 7 had contested elections under the banner of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) of which the Petitioner was the President as well as the Leader. It has further been averred that elections to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha took place in September-October 2009. On 9.11.2009, initially Respondents No. 3 to 6 moved an application to Respondent No. 1 claiming that they had taken a decision to merge Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) party with the Indian National Congress Party in terms of the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, and prayed for acceptence of the merger. On that very date, a similar application was moved by Respondent No. 7 wherein he stated that he was also a party to the said decision but could not reach Chandigarh due to unavoidable circumstances and hence had moved a separate application. By the impugned orders, Annexures P-4 and P-7, Respondent No. 1 accepted the merger.

(3.) The Petitioner further asserts that he moved applications and reminder to Respondent No. 1 requesting him to provide copies of the applications moved by the private Respondents, as also the copies of the orders passed thereon. However, the same were not provided. Thereafter, on 9.12.2009, the Petitioner moved petitions under Article 191 read with Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and the Haryana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 (for short "the Rules") praying for disqualification of Respondents No. 3 to 7 as Members of the Haryana Legislative Assembly. It is further averred in the petition that in response to his application for supplying him the documents, as aforesaid, the Petitioner was asked, vide letter dated 9.12.2009, to intimate the provision under which the said application was maintainable. The Petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 17.12.2009. Thereafter, on 1.1.2010 the Petitioner was supplied the aforementioned documents. It is further the case of the Petitioner that during the period December 2009 to March 2010, he did not receive any notice, intimation or document from Respondent No. 1 regarding the fate of the said five petitions filed by him. The Petitioner thereafter on 20.4.2010 inspected the files of the disqualification petitions wherein, the following facts were revealed: