OM PARKASH CHAUTALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issues raised in these writ petitions are identical. Respondents in these cases are same. Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners are identical. So we consider it advantageous to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment.

(2.) Writ Petition No. 10245 of 1997 is at the instance of leader of Samta Legislature Party, who is recognised as Leader of the opposition in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. He is an Ex-Chief Minister of the State. Haryana Vidhan Sabha had its Budget session from 5th March, 1997 to 21st March, 1997. While Vidhan Sabha was in session, on 17-3-1997, the petitioner took part in the discussion on the budget for 1997-98. He sought certain clarifications from the Education Minister, relating to certain anomalies in the pronouncements made by the Minister vis-a-vis proposals in the budget. Chief Minister felt embarrassed and irritated on the issues raised by the petitioner. Thereupon, it is alleged that the Chief Minister got up and asked the Speaker, "whether you are going to set them right or we set them right". This stand taken by the Chief Minister, it is alleged was questioned by the petitioner and others. Without any further provocation, 4th respondent-minister-in-charge of Agriculture and Parliamentary Affairs, moved a motion for suspension of the petitioner from the House for the remainder of the session. That motion was carried by the House. The petitioner and member of his party staged a walkout. He has thereafter not been allowed to attend the remaining part of the session which was adjourned sine die on 21st March, 1997. Legislature was not prorogued by the Governor as provided by Article 174 of the Constitution. Since petitioner was under bona fide belief that assembly session will be prorogued when it was adjourned sine die, after exhausting all the business scheduled for that session, he did not take any action to question his suspension from the session. Once session is prorogued, all proceedings pending at that time are to lapse. The Chief Minister deliberately did not advise Governor to prorogue the House. In the absence of the order proroguing the House, the session was deemed to be continuing. Speaker of the House issued telegrams/notices to the member of the Vidhan Sabha to attend the session commencing on 21st July, 1997. Petitioner and other three members who were suspended from the session were not informed of this. This action of the Speaker in connivance with the Chief Minister for excluding the petitioner and three others from taking part in the Session is nothing but a fraud on the Constitution, motivated and tainted with gross mala fides.

(3.) Governor of Haryana issued two ordinances; Ordinances Nos. 2 and 3 of 1997, under Article 213 of the Constitution of India on the basis that the Vidhan Sabha is not in session. This action of the Governor, based on advice of the Council of Ministers, must be taken as a ground to treat the session as prorogued after it was adjourned sine die on 21st March, 1997. Thus the budget session must be deemed to have been prorogued and the session starting on 21-7-1997 is to be treated as a new session. In such a situation, the suspension of the petitioner, which was effected by the motion of 17-3-1997, cannot be a bar to his taking part in the new session. On these basis he prayed for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the motion, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit-P1, carried on 17-3-1997 and for writ of prohibition restraining respondents Nos. 2 to 5 from preventing the petitioner and others in attending the session of Vidhan Sabha commencing from 21st July, 1997.