UNION OF INDIA Vs. SH. HARISH CHANDRA SINGH RAWAT AND ANR.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNION OF INDIA
Sh. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat And Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) S.L.P.(C) No. 11567 of 2016 The present special leave petition is directed against the judgment
and order dated 21st April, 2016, passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.795 of
2016, whereby the Division Bench has quashed the order of Proclamation dated 27th March, 2016, issued by the President of India under Article
356 of the Constitution of India. We need not advert to any of the facts that has been adumberated in the said judgment, for the nature of the
order we are passing today. That is for another day.
(2.) When the special leave petition was taken up on 22nd April, 2016, the Court issued notice and passed the following order:-
"Issue notice. As Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Amit Bhandari, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1, no further notice need be issued. As far as the respondent No.2 is concerned, let service be effected through Dasti. Let the matter be listed on 27th April, 2016. The High Court is requested to provide the judgment dated 21st April, 2016, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.795 of 2016, to the parties by 26th April, 2016. The judgment shall be filed before this Court on that day. Having heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for the Union of India, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the Union of India in connected special leave petitions, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Uttarakhand, it is directed that the judgment of the High Court shall remain in abeyance till 27th April, 2016. That apart, as undertaken by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, the Union of India shall not revoke the Presidential Proclamation till the next date of hearing."
(3.) Be it stated, after the said order was passed the judgment passed by the High Court was brought on record and the petitioner had sought time
to amend the special leave petition to incorporate the grounds assailing
the defensibility of the same and the same was permitted. The matter was
adjourned thereafter and when it was listed on 4th May, 2016, regard
being had to the oral suggestion given on the prior date, Mr. Mukul
Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, submitted that the Union of India was
seriously considering the suggestion given by this Court to have a floor
test of the Assembly to put an end to the controversy that has emerged in
this case. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Kapil Sibal and Dr. Rajeev
Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1
submitted that they had no objection. The matter was accordingly
adjourned and the interim order was allowed to remain in force.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.