VIRENDER PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 26.6.1998 Annexure P-11, passed by the Speaker of the Haryana Legislative Assembly is under challenge in this Court by way of present writ petition. Vide the said order dated 26.6.1998 the Speaker had dismissed the two petitions filed by the petitioner under paragraph 6 of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Rule 6 of the Haryana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) against Charan Dass Shorewala and Vinod Kumar Mariya respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively.

(2.) IN the petition under Rule 6 of the rules read with 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India filed by Virender Pal petitioner, against Charan Dass Shorewala respondent No. 4, copy Annexure P-15, it was alleged that petitioner was member of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha belonging to Samata Legislative Party and Charan Dass Shorewala respondent was also elected to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha on the Samata Party symbol and he made declaration to the Speaker informing him that he was a member of the Samata Legislative Party in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. It was further alleged that in a meeting of Samata Legislative Party, Shri Om Parkash Chautala was elected as leader of the Party. It was alleged that after some time Charan Dass Shorewala respondent started indulging in anti-party activities and as such he was expelled from Samata Legislative Party and the Speaker was informed about the said expulsion. It was alleged that in the last session of the Vidhan Sabha, the Speaker allotted separate seat to Charan Dass respondent showing him to be an unattached member and did not allot him seat along with Samata Legislative Party Legislators inasmuch as Samata Party Legislators were allotted only 22 seats instead of 24 seats which were originally allotted to them. It was alleged that Leader of the Samata Legislative Party wrote a letter to the Speaker in this regard protesting for the allotment of only 22 seats and also clearly mentioned in the said letter that Charan Dass Shorewala and Vinod Kumar Mariya respondents should be deemed to be the members of Samata Legislative Party and their expulsion from the party was its internal affair. It was alleged that expulsion of Charan Dass respondent did not give him freedom to voluntarily relinquish the membership of Samata Legislative Party and did not confer upon him a right to cross over from the Samata Party to the ruling alliance or to accept ministerial berth in the Government as he was bound to sit along with the members of the Samata Party and to vote in line with the party and he cannot join the government as member of the ruling alliance. It was alleged that Charan Dass respondent had been inducted as full-fledged Minister and was administered oath by the Governor of Haryana on 14.1.1997. It was further alleged that Speaker had declared Charan Dass Shorewala respondent as an unattached member in violation of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and others, AIR 1994 S.C. 1558 and G. Vishwanathan v. The Hon'ble Speaker, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly, Madras and others, AIR 1996 S.C. 1060. It was alleged that by leaving the Samata Legislative Party and accepting the ministerial berth, Charan Dass respondent incurred disqualification inasmuch as he shall be deemed to have voluntarily relinquished the membership of Samata Legislative Party. It was further alleged that Charan Dass respondent could not take the cover of being an unattached member and cannot escape the rigours of law as enshrined in 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India. It was alleged that he violated the provisions contained in the 10th Schedule and had rendered himself liable to be disqualified from becoming member of Haryana Vidhan Sabha.. It was further alleged that Samata Legislative Party had already protested to the Speaker in this regard. It was accordingly prayed that Charan Dass respondent be declared to be disqualified from being a member of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha and his seat be declared vacant.

(3.) BOTH sides led documentary evidence in the form of affidavits/counter affidavits besides producing various documents as per the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 4.5.1998 copy Annexure P-8. Under issue No. 3 it was held that Samata Party led by Shri O.P. Chautala in the State of Haryana had merged with S.J.P.(R) on 18.6.1996 and the merger had the support of 21 members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha while the two respondents namely Charan Dass Shorewala and Vinod Kumar Mariya besides Azad Mohammad having not accepted the merger constituted a separate group within the meaning of para-4 of the 10th Schedule, and in this manner the merger had the support of more than 2/3rd of the strength of the Legislative members of the Samata Party and consequently para-2 of the 10th Schedule would have no application. Accordingly this issue was decided in favour of respondents. Under issue No. 4, it was held that in view of the finding on issue No. 3 petition under rule 6 of the Rules was not maintainable and accordingly this issue was decided against the petitioner. Issue No. 7 was decided against the petitioner and it was held that 10th Schedule of the Constitution did not contemplate a situation where the original political party may merge with another political party and yet its Legislative Party can remain a separate entity. It was further held that if an original political party merges with another political party, the Legislature Party of the original political party has to decide whether it supports the merger or opposes it. If 2/3rd members of the Legislature Party support the merger, the merger is complete and takes effect as contemplated by para-4 of the 10th Schedule. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the petitioner and it was held that the two respondents were members of the group which did not accept the merger and as such, the question of these respondents voluntarily giving up the membership of Samata Party did not arise. Issue No. 5 was also decided against the petitioner and it was held that the two respondents having not accepted the merger of the Samata Party with S.J.P.(R) on 18.6.1996, no order of expulsion could be passed against them on 25.10.1996. Under issue No. 6 it was held that Shri O.P. Chautala being Secretary General of the S.J.P.(R) had ceased to be member of the Samata Party not only by himself but also along with 21 out of 24 members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha including the petitioner. Issue No. 8 was also decided against the petitioner and it was held that the question of violation of whip did not arise from the pleadings of the parties. Under issue No. 9 it was held that he was deciding the petition under orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under issues Nos. 1 and 10 it was held that the two respondents were not disqualified under para-2 of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Rule 6 of the Rules. In the result, the Speaker dismissed the two petitions filed by the petitioner holding that he was not entitled to any relief against the two respondents. It is this order of the Speaker which is under challenge in the present writ petition.