2007 Supreme(Guj) 443

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.N.Patel
JAGDISHBHAI THAKORE - Appellant
Versus
CHANDRIKABEN CHUDASMA - Respondent
Special Civil Application 16631 Of 2007
Decided On : 07/25/2007

Headnote:Point in Issue :

       Whether Speaker of the House can be directed to allow presentation of Public Accounts Committee Report in the House.

       Head Note :

       (a) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19, 194, 208 and 212 - Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules, 1966 - Rules 2(c), 2(n), 23, 24, 56, 166, 183, 197, 196, 177 and 175(3) - Public Accounts Committee Report - Presentation - Direction for - In defiance of ruling by Speaker - Scope of - Finding as to - The decision taken by Speaker not allowing the presentation of Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is not in the capacity as a Tribunal in judicial proceedings - But it is in pursuance of rules of procedure adopted by the House - Same is covered by Article 212(1) of the Constitution which cannot be called in question before the Court - That apart there is no valid report in existence - The alleged report is merely its draft format which is not approved by the members of the PAC and it is not signed by its Chairman of the Committee such an unsigned and undated report as per rules of the procedure adopted by the House is not allowed by the Speaker to be presented on the floor of the House - The decision of Speaker therefore, cannot be faulted in these circumstances Court refused to issue writ to mandamus or any other appropriate writ to place report of PAC on the table of the House.

       Held :

       Learned Advocate General of the State has presented original file and the resolutions of the Public Accounts Committee, which reveal the fact that on 24.03.2007 and 28.03.2007, the report of the Public Accounts Committee was in draft format and was not finally approved by the Committee. Looking to the original file, in which, the Speaker has made endorsement and given direction on 19.06.2006, the report was returned by the Speaker to Public Accounts Committee. It appears that again the same report was submitted by Public Accounts Committee to the Speaker in a draft format, it was unsigned and it was undated. It was received by Speaker on 16.07.2007. It was returned by the Speaker on the same day. In the year 2006, Chairman of Public Accounts Committee was changed. Now, instead of Respondent No. 1, new Chairman is Respondent No. 2. Thereafter again new Chairman sent the same report on 18.07.2007, but, now with a signature of Ex-Chairman i.e. Respondent No. 1. It is alleged by Advocate General that though Respondent No. 1 was not a Chairman of Public Accounts Committee on 18.07.2007, with his signature report was sent to the Speaker but it was also undated. This was received by the Speaker on 18.07.2007, which has been again returned by the Speaker as per Direction No. 23 issued under Rule 183 of Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules enacted under Article 208 of the Constitution of India. Thus, unsigned and undated report in its draft format, which is not finalized by the Committee or approved by the Committee and in defiance of the direction given by the Speaker dated 19.06.2006 cannot be tabled on the floor of the House. [Para 5]

       There is no finalized or approved report of Public Accounts Committee in existence. Never ever before Public Accounts Committee sent report to the Speaker, which is approved by the Committee and signed by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Despite the direction was given on 19.06.2006 by the Speaker, as per Direction No. 23 issued by the Speaker under Rule 183 of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules, has not been complied with. Such report, looking to the procedure adopted by the House of the legislature of the State has rightly been returned and correctly been not allowed to be tabled on the floor of the House, by the Speaker-a navigator of the proceedings of the House. Looking to the procedure adopted by the House for regulating its own business, the report given by Public Accounts Committee in its draft format, unsigned and undated cannot be allowed to be tabled before the House. [Para 5]

       Looking to the facts of the present case, the decision taken by the Speaker of the House is not in his capacity as a Tribunal in judicial proceedings but the decision of the Speaker is in pursuance of the rules of procedure adopted by the House under Article 208 of the Constitution of India. If the decision is taken as a Presiding Officer of the House while conducting the business of the House, it is covered by Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise also, in the facts of the present case, as stated hereinabove, there is no existence of valid report of Public Accounts Committee, which is in its draft format, which is not approved by the members of the Public Accounts Committee, which is not signed by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Such an unsigned and undated report as per Rules of procedure adopted by the House, under Article 208 of the Constitution of India, is not allowed by the Speaker to be presented on the floor of the House. This is a decision of the Speaker in the proceedings of the House and not as a Tribunal. [Para 10.5]

       Head Note :

       (b) State Legislative Assembly - Speaker of the House - Power of - Relating to Public Accounts Committee - Discussed and indicated - The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) directly works under the supervision and control of the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the House has all powers and privileges to issue directions from time to time for efficient working of the Committee for regulating its procedure and organisation of its work - Therefore, Chairman of the PAC cannot present the report before the House without getting any direction from Speaker - Not only that pruning of the report of the Committee is permissible by the direction of the Speaker of the House - These rules framed in this regard are framed to govern the proceedings of the House and validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of the State cannot be called in question of ground of irregularities alleged.

       Held :

       The Speaker of the House is regulating the business of the House. Speaker holds an important and ceremonial office. Speaker/Chairman holds pivotal position in the scheme of Parliamentary democracy and is the guardian of rights and privileges of the House. Speakers office is undoubtly very high and has considerable aura with the attribute of impartiality. Primary function of Speaker is to regulate the conduct of business and procedure of the Assembly. Looking to the powers given to the Speaker under the Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules, Court is clearly of the opinion that the Public Accounts Committee is working directly under the supervision and control of the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the House has all powers and privileges to issue directions from time to time for the efficient working of the Committee, for regulating its procedure and organization of its work. Rule 177 or Direction No. 22 or Rule of Procedure No. 24 for the internal working of the Public Accounts Committee cannot be given over-riding effect upon general power of the Speaker given under Rule 183 to be read with Rule 56 and Rule 2(c). Right from the definition of word "Committee", it is clear that "Committee" means a Committee of members appointed or elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker And which works under the direction of the Speaker. Thus, the argument, which is canvassed before this Court that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee can present the report before the House without getting any direction from the Speaker, is running counter to and in contradiction with the Rules enacted by the House for conducting its own business. What is contended before this Court is that the Speaker of the House cannot give a direction for pruning the report. This contention, for the reasons stated hereinabove is running counter to and in contradiction with the Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules, especially Rule 183 to be read with Rule 186 to be read with limited sphere of work assigned to the Public Accounts Committee under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 197 to be read with Direction No. 23 issued by the Speaker. Pruning of report of any Committee is permissible by the direction of Speaker of the House, especially when Speaker is acting as per Direction No. 23, issued under Rule 183 of Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules. Apart from the fine nicety of the aforesaid Rules, even prima facie, these Rules and directions are governing the proceedings in the Legislature as per Article 208 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, as per Article 212 of the Constitution of India, validity of any proceedings in the legislature of the State cannot be called in question on the ground of alleged irregularities. [Para 4.6]

       Head Note :

       (c) Public Accounts Committee Report - Presentation in the House - Irregularities committed during - Effect of - Finding as to - Rules and directions are framed by the House to strengthen the efficient working of the House - Even if there are irregularities in following the procedure for conducting business in the House as per Sub-article (1) of Article 212 of Constitution the validity of the proceedings in the House cannot be called in question on ground of alleged irregularities - However in the present case Court found no irregularities committed in the proceedings - There is no deviation or departure in the proceeding by the Speaker of the House - There is therefore, no scope for judicial review in the matter.

       Held :

       A report to be presented to the House, must be approved by the Committee and must be signed by the Chairman of the Committee or must be signed by any authorized member of the Committee. As per Direction No. 23, before any report is presented before the House, the Speaker being a navigator of the proceedings in the House must be informed about this report. As per Direction No. 23, it has been accepted by the State Legislature as proceeding in the House that the report of the Committees shall be submitted to the Speaker for his information and for such orders as he may deem fit to give thereon. This is also a nature of proceedings adopted by the House itself, whether members of the Public Accounts Committee like or not. It is not the wish and will of the members of the Public Accounts Committee to be considered, but, the Court is concerned with the procedure adopted by the House for conducting its business in the House. Every House as stated hereinabove, has it own powers, privileges and immunities. Article 194(3) of the Constitution of India is like a fundamental right of the State Legislature. To fortify these powers, privileges and immunities, further powers have been given to the House under Article 208 of the Constitution of India so that they can frame their own Rules to conduct business in the House (these are the rules known as Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules). Constitution has given further immunities to strengthen the efficient work in the House, that even if there are irregularities in following the procedure for conducting business in the House, as per Sub-article (1) of Article 212 of the Constitution of India, the validity of the proceedings in the House shall not be called in question on the ground of alleged irregularities of the procedure. In the facts of the present case, Court saw no irregularity in the proceedings. Looking to the facts of the present case, there is no deviation or departure in the proceedings, by the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House has meticulously followed the procedure adopted by the legislature, especially Direction No. 23 read with Rule 183 read with Rule 186 of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules, but as stated hereinabove, as per Article 212(1), even if there is an irregularity, in my opinion, there is no scope for judicial review for testing the proceedings in the House. [Para 5]

       Head Note :

       (d) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 208 and 212 - Rules accepted by House - Nature of - Violation of Rules - Effect of - Discussed and indicated - Alleged Rules are essentially procedural in the nature and even if procedure is not followed or there is any irregularity in the procedure adopted by House under Article 212 of the Constitution - It does not permit the judicial review of the validity of proceedings in the House - In the present case action of the Speaker of the House is in the proceedings in the Legislature of the State in conducting its business in the House and, therefore, it cannot be called in question in any Court of law as Rules of procedure are not statutory in nature.

       Held :

       Rules accepted by the House under Article 208 of Constitution of India are essentially procedural in nature and even if the procedure is not followed or there is any irregularity in the procedure adopted by the House under Article 212 of the Constitution of India, it does not permit the judicial review of the validity of the House proceedings. In the facts of the present case, as stated hereinabove, the Speaker of the House has followed Direction No. 23 given under Rule 183 of Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules, adopted by the House under Article 208 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the action of the Speaker of the House is in the proceedings in the legislature of the State in conducting its business in the House and, therefore, it cannot be called in question in any Court of law, as Rules of procedure are not statutory in nature. [Para 8]

       Head Note :

       (e) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 12, 194(3) and 226 - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Decision of Speaker of House - Scope of - Finding as to - The powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Legislatures, of its members and of its Committees given in Constitution are like fundamental right given to the State Legislature - House can set its own proceedings and adopt their own rules to conduct the business in the House - Looking to the functions assigned to the House of State Legislature if House acts as a Tribunal and takes a decision like disqualification due to defection the same may be subject to judicial review - The Speaker of the House has two entirely different capacities - One as Presiding Officer of the sitting of the House and another as Tribunal - In a former capacity if any decision is taken in the course of business of the House, judicial review of the said decision is not permissible whereas in the second capacity, the decision of Speaker is justiciable.

       Held :

       Article 194(3) pronounces the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Legislatures, of its members and of its Committees. It is like a fundamental right given to the State Legislature. House can set its own proceedings and adopt their own rules to conduct business in the House, as per Article 208 of the Constitution of India. The rules of procedure enacted by the State Legislature are not statutory rules as stated hereinabove. The House is not bound by those rules, nor House can be compelled to follow those rules of procedure. Even if there are some irregularities in following some rules of procedure, they cannot be questioned for their irregularities. Looking to the functions assigned to the House of the State Legislature, if the House Acts as a Tribunal and takes a decision like disqualification due to defection, the same may be subject to judicial review. If the Speaker of the House works as a Tribunal and exercises judicial powers, in such situation, the judicial review of the decision of the Speaker or the House is permissible. Very narrow is the scope for judicial review. [Para 9.1]

       The Speaker of the House has two entirely different capacities-one as Presiding Officer of the sitting of the House and another as Tribunal. In a former capacity, if any decision is taken in the course of business of the house, judicial review of the said decision is not permissible, whereas in the second capacity i.e. if the Speaker is functioning as a Tribunal, the decision of the Speaker is justiciable. [Para 9.2]

       Law Laid Down :

       Any decision by Speaker of House as Presiding Officer of the sitting of the House is not open to judicial review.

       Case Law Analysis :

       M.S.M. Sharma vs. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha & Ors., AIR 1960 SC 1186 [Para 7];; A.M. Paulraj vs. The Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras & Anr., AIR 1986 Mad 248 [Para 7.1];; AIR 1954All 319 [Para 7.1];; Chhabildas Mehta, M.L.A. vs. The Legislative Assembly, Gujarat State & Ors., 1970 GLR 729 [Paras 8 & 10.3];; Shri Kihota Hollohon vs. Zachilhu & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 412 [Para9.1];; Dilipsinh Vakhatsinh Parmar vs. Gumansinh Vaghela, 1998 (3) GLR 2119 [Para 9.2];; AIR 1993 SC 412 [Para 9.2];; Raja Ram Pal vs. Honble Speaker, Lok Sabha, 2007 (3) SCC 184 [Para 9.3].-Relied on

       AIR 1965 SC 751 [Para 10.5];; AIR 1966 Cal 363 [Para 10.5];; AIR 1998 P & H 80 [Para 10.5];; AIR 2005 SC 3520 [Para 10.5];; 2005 (12) JT 64 (SC) [Para 10.5];; 2006 (2) JT 202 (SC) [Para 10.5];; 2007 (2) JT 1 (SC) [Para 10.5];; AIR 1998 SC 998 [Para 10.6];; 2005 AIR SCW 5107 [Para 10.6];; 1993 (4) SCC 97 [Para 10.6].-Distinguished

       Conclusion :

       In the facts of the case Court has no jurisdiction to direct Speaker of House to allow presentation of report in the House - There is, therefore, no substance in the petition hence it is dismissed.

       Cases Referred :

       Janardhan Reddy vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1951 SC 217 = 1951 SCR 344;; Executive Committee, U.P. Warehousing Corporation vs. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, 1969 (2) SCC 838;; Co-operative Bank Central Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, AIR 1970 SC 245;; Anisminic Ltd. vs. Foreign Compensation, 1969 (2) AC 147;; S.E. Asia Fire Bricks vs. Non-Metallic Products, 1981 AC 363.

       Decided in Favour of :

       Respondent

       Petition Dismissed