Order

WP (C) No. 123 of 2005

1. This petition was filed on 7.3.2005 and also mentioned at about 1.00 p.m. for being taken up for hearing on the same day. The Court directed the matter to be listed for hearing today at 1.40 p.m.

2. Issue notice in the petition as also on the application for stay.

3. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Pinki Anand, Advocate for the petitioner as also Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Mathur, Advocate for Respondents 3 and 4. Also perused the decision of this Court in Jagdambika Pal v. Union of India [(1999) 9 SCC 95].

4. At the very outset it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the filing of the petition further developments have taken place and a few developments are in the offing, as reported by the media. It is pointed out that the Governor in exercise of his constitutional power appointed a pro tem Speaker of the Legislative Assembly who is comparatively a junior member of the Legislative Assembly and it is submitted that though various senior members were available and as per constitutional convention the seniormost member should have been appointed as a pro te