UMADHAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the intervener. Both the petitioner and the intervener are members of the Legislative Assembly.

(2.) In his application, as filed before us, the petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 2 in fact had not resigned his office as the Speaker of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and that a certain resignation had been manipulated, on which basis respondent No.3, the then Deputy Speaker got a notification issued by the State Government declaring that on account of acceptance of the resignation of respondent No.2 by respondent No.3, the office of the Speaker had fallen vacant. The application has referred to certain facts either within the exclusive knowledge of respondent No. 2 or in the knowledge of the petitions suggesting that there had been good reasons to hold that the notification of the acceptance of resignation of respondent No. 2 is void being mala fide both in law and in fact.

(3.) The intervener, however, has mainly objected to the maintainability of the instant application on the ground, inter alia that Art.212 of the Constitution of India bars the jurisdiction of this Court to enter into the proceedings of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and unless there is an examination of the issues pertaining to the proceedings of the House, nothing could be said on the application of the petitioner as to whether respondent No. 2 has resigned his office or not.