JAI SINGH RATHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by four petitioners, namely, Mr. Jai Singh Rathi, Mr. Mahant Ganga Sagar, Mr. Ganpat ram and Mr. Fateh Chand Vij, Petitioners 1 to 4, all members of the Haryana legislative Assembly, for a writ, order or direction to quash the proceedings of the haryana Vidhan Sabha of February 5, 1969 during the course of which the petitioners were suspended for the remainder of the session of the Legislative assembly, and for quashing all the subsequent proceedings of the Legislative assembly leading to the passage of the appropriation bill for the year 1969-70 on February 12, 1969. The respondents to the petition are the State of Haryana, Mr. Bansi Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana, Mr. Ran Singh, Mr. Speaker of the Haryana legislative Assembly, Secretary of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, and Smt. Chandra vati and Mr. Banarsi pass Gupta, members of the Haryana Legislative Assembly, respondents 1 to 6.

(2.) THERE was a mid-term poll In Haryana State for the election to the Haryana legislative Assembly on May 14, 1968. The total strength of the membership of the Assembly is 81. Congress party secured 48 seats, other various parties secured together 27 seats, and there were 6 independents. One member of the congress party was elected Mr. Speaker, respondent 3, and so the strength of the parties in the House was 47 Congress as against 33 others, including 6 independents. So the Congress party had a clear majority in the House. Respondent 2 became the Chief Minister as leader of the Congress party. He, therefore, formed the Government.

(3.) IN the petitioners' petition paragraphs 2 to 20 give details of internal strains in the functioning of the Congress party. Some allegations are made with regard to respondent 2, who has in his affidavit in return given denial to the same. It has, however, not been denied at the hearing of this petition that what is stated in those paragraphs concerns the internal political organisation and functioning of the congress party and has nothing to do with the merit of controversy raised in this petition by the petitioners which is for consideration of this Court. The subject-matter of those paragraphs is completely irrelevant and the petitioners Were ill-advised to bring in this petition such political matters with which this Court can possibly have no concern. This manner of using the forum of this Court with reference to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to bring before it political matters, not that such matters are relevant to the controversy before the Court but merely to embarrass the opposite party, is clear indication of the irresponsible attitude of the petitioners and their advisors. In so far as these proceedings are concerned, it is much to be deprecated and it is hoped that this type of thing shall in future not find repetition. Respondent 2 in his affidavit very rightly complains that the allegations in those paragraphs deal with internal matters relating to the congress Legislative party of which the petitioners are not members and with which they have no concern. It is affirmed that those allegations do not have the remotest bearing on the relief sought in the petition", having been made just to embarrass respondent 2 and to drag the question of his leadership of the party into controversy before this Court. This is a just grievance on the part of respondent 2. The conduct of the petitioners in this respect as also of those who advised the petitioners into a course of this type must be disapproved and, as I have said, repetition of this type is not expected in future in such proceedings or rather in any proceedings before this Court, because it has nothing to do with matters political.