DURGA DAS RATHOR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claiming to represent vox populi has filed the instant application for a writ in the nature of a quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to issue to the respondent quashing the oath administered to respondent No. 4 by the Speaker of Bihar Vidhan Sabha as a member of the said Sabha and restraining respondent No. 4 from bitting and participating in the proceedings thereof.

(2.) The petitioner has stated that he is a social and political worker, a former member of the Legislative Assembly and a office bearer of the Bhartiya Janta Party, Bihar Pradesh. According to the petitioner Shri Satya Narain Dudhani was elected from 280 Tondi Assembly constituency of the State of Bihar defeating respondent No. 4 Sri Uday Kumar Singh in the general assembly election held in March 1985. Shri Satya Narain Dudhani was declared elected on Bhartiya Janta Party Ticket on 7-3-1985. Respondent No. 4 (Uday Kumar Singh) challenged Shri Satya Narain Dudhani's election by filing an election petition (Election Petition No. 1 of 1985) at the Ranchi Bench of this Court on grounds inter alia of illegalities and irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Returning officer and other officers in the counting of votes of various candidates, at the election. The said election petition was finally heard by L P, Sahdeo, J. who after hearing the parties delivered his Judgment on 6th December, 1988 setting aside the election of Shri Satya Narain Dudhani and declaring respondent No. 4 (Shri Uday Kumar Singh) elected. But on that very date, that is to say, on 6th December, 1988 learned counsel appearing for Satya Narain Dudhani made an oral prayer for stay of the operation of the order before L. P. N. Sahdeo, J., as Shri Satya Narain Dudhani wanted to challenge the judgment of this Court before the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner has alleged that Sahdeo, J. observed for filing an application in writing on that very day and an application in writing was filed and a copy thereof was also served on learned Advocate for respondent No. 4 (Shri Uday Kumar Singh) who was present in the Court. Sahdeo, J, however, passed no order on the application on that day. The application for stay was posted on the next day that is to say on 7th December, 1988 for orders. Respondent No. 4, Shri Uday Kumar Singh, however, managed to obtain a certified copy of the judgment and got it sent to Patna through special messenger. He met the Speaker on the morning of 7th December, 1988 with the certified copy of the judgment. The speaker at about 11 A. M. got him sworn in as a member of the Legislative Assembly and also got the judgment and swearing in of respondent No. 4, Shri Uday Kumar Singh notified in the official Gazette on 7-12-1988 itself However, when the application tor stay was heard by Sahdeo, J, on 7-12-1988 operation of the judgment in the election case was stayed for 15 days. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4, Shri Uday Kumar Singh was present in the Court. Shri Satya Narayan Dudhani filed Civil Appeal No. 4337 (N. C. E.) of 1988 betore the Supreme Court of India against the judgment and order dated 6-12-1988 passed by L. P. N. Shahdeo, J. He also filed Civil Miscellaneous petition No. 32477 of 1988 before the Supreme Court for stay of the operation of the judgment and order of this Courts

(3.) We are informed at the Bar that the Supreme Court has admitted the appeal for hearing but declined to grant any stay in favour of Shri Dudhaai. The petitioner has contended that the rerpondent No 4 manipulated and the respondent No. 2 (Speaker of Bihar Legislative Assembly) connived in administering oath of office to respondent No. 4, Shri Uday Kumar Singh, ia violation of the constitutional mandates ; and in hurried and hush-hush way demonstratively been mala fide.