K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – The writ petition challenges the disqualification of a Member of the Bihar Legislative Council. It has come up before the Division Bench based on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Election Commission of India vs. Bajrang Bahadur Singh; (2015) 12 SCC 570. Noticing that there is no limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition against disqualification, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had prescribed eight weeks as the limitation period, till a period is prescribed by the Legislature, for the purpose of filing a writ petition and a further eight weeks within which the High Court was also obliged to consider and dispose of the writ petition. The said period was prescribed since, after the disqualification order has been passed, the Election Commission was obliged to carry out a fresh election within a period of six months.

2. In the present case, the disqualification was on 06.02.2024 and the writ petition was filed on 22.02.2024. The eight weeks time had expired on 22.04.2024. The writ petition ought to have been placed before a Division Bench which the Registry failed to do. We also notice that the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not apprise the learned Single Judge about the requirement as stipulated in the cited decision. In fact, the same was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge only on 01.07.2024, when the learned Single Judge directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice. A motion was made before us on 02.07.2024 and the matter was posted on 03.07.2024 for hearing.

3. The disqualification was made on the complaint made by the 3rd respondent. We see that the 3rd respondent has been served with notice, but none appears. We are apprised of the fact that as of now there is an election scheduled and there is only one nomination filed. The election is scheduled on 12.07.2024 and the last date of withdrawal of nomination is on 05.07.2024. Obviously, if the solitary nomination is not withdrawn, the result would have to be declared; when the time for withdrawing of nomination expires. In such circumstances, we heard the matter finally and posted the matter for judgment at 2:15 p.m. on 04.07.2024.

4. The petitioner, a member of the Legislative Council was disqualified and the writ petition was filed challenging Annexure-P-12 order passed by the Chairman of the Bihar Legislative Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Chairman’).

5. Sri. S. B. K Mangalam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner alleged that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was issued with a notice and the petitioner had approached this Court alleging that the complaint did not satisfy the requirements under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since no affidavit accompanied the complaint. This Court directed the said objection to be raised before the Chairman and the learned Counsel for the Legislative Council had also assured that it would be considered. It was on the specific undertaking of the learned Counsel appearing for the Chairman that it would be considered, the petitioner was relegated to the Chairman. A preliminary objection was filed pointing out the procedural irregularity, which according to the learned Counsel required the Chairman to dismiss the complaint. However, no order was issued on the preliminary objection and final orders were passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, to refute the allegations raised. There is clear violation of principles of natural justice and complete absence of application of mind, as is evident from the impugned order. The impugned order records the arguments and without finding any of the ingredients for disqualification and without dealing with the allegations, ordered disqualification.

6. Learned Counsel relied on Shri Baru Ram vs. Smt. Prasanni and Other; AIR 1959 SC 93 to contend that when a procedure has been prescribed by statute, it should be done in that manner and not otherwise. Municipal