K. KANNAN J.

I. The subject of challenge

1. The writ petition calls to question the correctness of the decision of the Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha rendered on 13.01.2013 rejecting an application moved by the petitioner Kuldeep Bishnoi under Paragraph 6 of Tenth Schedule to the Constitution on the issue of disqualification of 5 of the members of the Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) (for brief “HJC (BL)). This came on a petition filed by the petitioner following an order issued by the Speaker on 09.11.2009 signed by 4 MLAs of HJC (BL) namely Satpal Sangwan, Vinod Bhayana, Narendra Singh and Zile Ram Chochra respectively respondent Nos.3 to 6. The communication signed by them was to the effect that a decision had been taken to merge the HJC (BL) with Indian National Congress (for brief “INC”) party in terms of the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The letter requested the acceptance of the merger of HJC (BL) with INC and to recognize the applicant-legislators as members of the INC in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. The minutes of the meeting of the HJC (BL) on 09.11.2009 accompanying the letter was to the effect that at a meeting of the Legislators of the HJC (BL) elected to the 12th Haryana Legislative Assembly held on 09.11.2009 to consider and decide to merge the original HJC (BL) with the INC, the requisite legislature party members have agreed to merge HJC (BL) with INC. The Speaker in his order dated 09.11.2009 stated cryptically that he had perused the relevant provisions of Constitution of India and he was of the considered opinion that the application deserved acceptance in terms of the provisions of the Constitution. He also recorded the identity of the applicants as well as decision as being borne out of ‘their free will’. Leader of the Congress Legislature Party Sh. Bhupinder Singh Hooda and President, HPCC, Sh. Phool Chand Mullana were reported to have communicated to him in writing accepting the merger. Alongside the order passed by the Speaker was also a letter of communication by the 7th respondent informing the Speaker that he was unavailable at Chandigarh and therefore, he moved a separate application informing that he had also accorded with the decision of the merger.

2. Five separate petitions were filed under Section 191 read with Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and the rules framed against respondent Nos.3 to 7 praying for the disqualification of abovesaid respondents as members of Haryana Legislative Assembly. Nine other petitions were also filed by non-Congress members seeking for similar disqualification against respondent Nos.3 to 7. The petitions which had been numbered as petitions No.1 to 14 were clubbed together and the impugned order was passed on 13.01.2013.

II. A quick run-up to circumstances leading to the impugned order

3. The petitioner's applications before the Speaker under Paragraph 6 had been filed on 09.12.2009 and it would be worthwhile to recapitulate the facts in brief that led up to the passing of the impugned order. The impugned order itself came through a judicial intervention from the Supreme Court after going through the initial judicial process through directions of a Single Bench as modified by the Division Bench of this court. The Supreme Court set a definite date for disposal that would explain the previous litigative journey for this case.

4. In the first round of litigation, which the petitioner had initiated by filing CWP No.14194 of 2010, the petitioner made out a case that the Speaker was not likely to take any decision and the Speaker who had been described by name and impleaded as 2nd respondent had literally decided the whole issue finally ex parte without hearing the petitioner. Since he had already expressed the mind, the petitioner would contend that he would expect no justice from the Speaker and the subsequent conduct of the Speaker in dealing with disqualification petitions without any sense of urgency left no room to w