| • Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh (Fourth-time) |
| • National President, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) |
| • Member of Uttar Pardesh Legislative Council |
| KUMARI MAYAWATI | |
||
|
|||
|
|||
COURT ORDERS |
||
|
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD. |
||
|
||
|
||
| Writ Petition No. 5085 [MB] of 2003 Swami Prasad Maurya Petitioner Speaker and others Respondents. Sri S.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate alongwith S/Sri P.N.Gupta and Sunil Choudhary, Advocates. Sri Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate alongwith S/Sri K.K. Lahiri, Ejaz Maqbool, Jaideep Narain Mathur, Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate alongwith S/Sri Gaurav Bhatia, Anupam Mehrotra and Sri Virendra Bhatia, Senior Advocate with Sri S.A.H. Rizvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray,C. J. Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J. Date: 28.2.2006 JUDGEMENT: Reserved. [Delivered by Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla,J.] |
||
| I have minutely perused the well prepared and lucid judgment of Hon'ble the Chief Justice but with all regards, respect and all humility at my command, I find it difficult to concur with the view expressed by His Lordship on the main issues involved in the case, which undoubtedly are of far reaching consequences on the future of Indian polity. It is because of this reason; I have to write a separate judgment. This writ petition was filed before a Division Bench of this court in September, 2003 initially impugning the orders dated 6.9.2003 and 8.9.2003 passed by the Speaker [opposite party no.1] contained in Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition by the petitioner, who is a Member of Legislative Assembly and Leader of Bahujan Samaj Party Vidhan Mandal Dal, U.P. Hearing was concluded on 9 th September, 2005 and the judgment was reserved by the Division Bench. In the meantime an application for further hearing was filed and during the hearing an application for amendment was made wherein the petitioner has chosen to challenge the order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the opposite party no.1 on the disqualification application dated 4.9.2003 filed under paragraph 2 read with paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. Objections were filed to the said amendment application by the respondents saying that the application for amendment was made literally on the eve of the judgment and should be rejected on the basis of delay and laches. Prior to the decision on application for further hearing as well as on the amendment application, the matter was referred to this Full Bench by an order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The facts in detail have been explained by His Lordship in his judgment and thus the amendment application is also to be adjudicated by this Bench. It has been prayed that a writ in the nature of Quo-warranto be issued declaring the respondents no.2 to 41 to be disqualified under para 2(1)(a) of Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India and to declare that the seats occupied by the opposite parties no.2 to 41 have fallen vacant under the provisions of Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India w.e.f . 6.9.2003. Before proceeding ahead, I would like to mention in brief the events, which has lead to the filing of this writ petition and the events which happened during the pendency of the writ petition. Elections to the U.P. Legislative Assembly were held in February 2002. The Assembly is composed of 404 members out of which 403 members are elected and the one is nominated. The 2002 Assembly elections did not give a clear mandate to any single political party. The Partywise position in 14th Legislative Assembly as on 2.9.2003 is as under: |
||
|
||
| On 25.8.2003, a decision was taken by the Cabinet headed by Miss. Mayawati [ the then Chief Minister] to recommend to His Excellency, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh to dissolve the U.P. Legislative Assembly. The decision of the Cabinet regarding dissolution of Vidhan Sabha was made public by Miss. Mayawati in All India Party Worker Meeting of Bahujan Samaj Party held on 25.8.2003. At 10.45 AM on the following day i.e. on 26.8.2003, the leader of Samajwadi Party submitted his claim for forming a Government to the His Excellency the Governor of U.P. On 26.8.2003 itself at 1.00 PM Miss Mayawati submitted her resignation to the His Excellency the Governor. On the same day a meeting of 110 M.L.As of Bahujan Samaj Party (hereinafter referred to as 'BSP') was convened at 5, Kalidas Marg, Lucknow at 7.00 P.M., where it was resolved that no member of Legislative Assembly of Bahujan Samaj Party will do anything which would be against the interest of the Party. On 27.8.2003, thirteen ( 8 + 5) M.L.As of Bahujan Samaj Party went to His Excellency, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh alongwith Shri Shivpal Singh Yadav, General Secretary of Samajwadi Party and submitted a letter to His Excellency to invite Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav to form the government. These letters have been annexed in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner and I would like to quote verbatim the said letters:- "HAM NICHE LIKHE VIDHAYAKGAN JINKE HASTAKSHAR NICHE ANKIT HAIN, AAPSE VINARM ANURODH KARTE HAIN KI SHRI MULAYAM SINGH YADAV JI KO SARKAR BANANE KE LIYE AMANTARIT KIYA JAI KYONKI UTTAR PRADESH KI JANTA NA TO CHUNAV CHAAHATI HAI AUR NA HI RASHTRAPATI SHASHAN CHAAHATI HAI."[ English Translation: we, the undersigned MLAs, do respectfully request you that Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav ji should be invited to form the government because public of Uttar Pradesh neither wants election nor wants President's Rule.] On 29.8.2003, Mulayam Singh Yadav was appointed as Chief Minister and the Governor fixed time till 8th September 2003 for proving majority by a motion of confidence on the floor of the House. On 30.8.2003, petitioner wrote a letter asking for copies of letters of support, if any, given by the thirteen MLAs to the Governor's Secretariat. Similar letter was written by the petitioner on 3.9.2003. On 4.9.2003, the petitioner filed an application under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India for disqualification of the 13 MLAS for having voluntarily given up their Membership of Bahujan Samaj Party and acting against the interest of party. On 5.9.2003, the petitioner filed a caveat petition before the Speaker as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition inter-alia praying for opportunity to be given if 13 M.L.As or other members of the alleged faction files application under Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule for recognition of split in the Legislature party On 6.9.2003, thirty-seven M.L.As i.e. 13+ 24 moved a joint application before the Hon'ble Speaker inter-alia informing that they have formed a new group under the leadership of Sri Rajendra Singh Rana, MLA in the name of "Loktantrik Bahujan Dal" and requested him to recognize the said Dal as an independent party in the Legislative Assembly and also requested for separate sitting arrangement in the Assembly(copy of application is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition). At a subsequent time, on the same day, these aforesaid M.L.As. moved another application praying for merger of 'Loktantrik Bahujan Dal' into 'Samajwadi Party'. Thus on 6.9.2003, three applications were moved, one for recognition of split, another was for recognition of merger of the split group and a third was for recognition of six more MLAs named therein as Members of the group represented by Rajendra Singh Rana. On 8.9.2003, the BSP submitted affidavits dated 7.9.2003 by three of the above noted six MLAs denying their signature on the application dated 6.9.2003. The Speaker on the same evening i.e. on 6.9.2003 passed the order under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution recognizing 37 Members of Legislative Assembly as Lok Tantrik Bahujan Dal in Assembly and by the same order the Speaker also accepted their merger in the Samajwadi Party. However, the Speaker reserved order on the third application on the ground that none of the above noted six MLAs were present in person before him and later on 8.9.2003 recognized three Members as Members of the defunct 'Lok Tantrik Bahujan Dal' and also in the same breath recognized there merger with the Samajwadi Party. Heard Sri S.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner assisted by Sri P.N. Gupta and Sunil Chaudhary, A |
