K A MATHIALAGAN Vs. P SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions the petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 not to interfere in any manner with his right to continue to function as Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and also for a preventive injunction restraining the first respondent, the Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, from functioning as Speaker thereto, and by way of a consequential relief asks for the quashing of the notification published in the Tamil Nadu government Gazette Extraordinary No. 403 dated 2-12-1972 in Memo No. 22223/72-1 T. N. L. (B) Legislative Assembly III No. 676 (a) of 1972, notifying the petitioner as having been removed from the Office of the Speaker of the Tamil nadu legislative Assembly.

(2.) BEFORE the relevant facts as reflected in the affidavits filed by the parties are dealt with, certain events anterior to the controversial date, when the petitioner claims that his right to occupy the seat as Speaker of the Assembly has been taken away, have to be noticed. During the General Elections in 1971 the Dravida munnetra Kazhagam as a party was returned to power with a strength of 185 in the House of the Tamil Nadu Assembly as against the total strength of 235. The petitioner was one of the officers of the State Legislature chosen by the Assembly of the State to be the Speaker thereto and the first respondent as the Deputy speaker thereof. In October, 1972, due to a rift in the party, some members including Sri M. G. Ramachandran, left the Party and formed a new party known as Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party. As early as 30-10-1972, two members of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party gave notice of removal of the speaker soon after the rift as above in the party. On 13-11-1972, the Assembly met in its usual session with the petitioner in the Chair as its Speaker. There were inter alia two motions which were to be discussed on that day. One such motion was a no confidence motion against the Government and the other for the removal of the Speaker himself. But the petitioner as such Speaker adjourned the assembly to 5-12-1972. On the same day it appears that 183 members belonging to different political parties requested by means of a signed petition that the speaker should resign at once since he had already lost the confidence of the majority of the Assembly. By then the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party was of the confirmed view that the speaker was actively participating with Sri. M. G. Ramachandran, who for all practical purposes left the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party by then. In view of the pendency of the several important legislative business including financial matters, the Governor, exercising his powers under art. 174 (2) of the Constitution of India, prorogued the Assembly on 14-11-1972, obviously for the purpose of enabling him to issue an urgent Ordinance. The petitioner apprehending inconvenience filed on 16-11-1972 W. P. No. 2968 of 1972 challenging the order of prorogation on the ground of lack of good faith. Two other members of the Assembly thereafter joined the petitioner in such common cause and questioned the right of the Governor to prorogue the Assembly. After the prorogation, on 16-11-1972, Sri N. Veerasami and a few others gave notice of resolution for the removal of the speaker to the Secretary of the Legislative assembly, which was admittedly received by the petitioner. Whilst this was the position, the Governor on 28-11-1972, in exercise of his powers under Article 174 of the Constitution summoned the Assembly to meet on 2-12-1972. On 29-111972, the Governor sent a message to the Assembly under Art. 175 (2) listing the business to be transacted by the Assembly and requiring the Assembly inter alia to consider with all convenient dispatch any other business for which notice had been given under the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules. I have already referred to one such notice of resolution for the removal of the Speaker given by some members on 16-11-1972. The writ petitions filed by the petitioner and some of the other members of the Assembly came up for hearing before a Full Bench of this court and judgment was reserved thereon on 30-11-1972. As the Assembly was summoned by the Governor on 2-12-1972, the matter was set for being spoken to and in the presence of all parties the learned Judges of the Full Bench made it clear that the reservation of the judgment in the earlier Full Bench case did not preclude the Assembly from meeting on 2-12-1972, but such proceedings would however be subject to the result of the judgment in that case. The Full Bench subsequently dismissed the writ petitions. On 2-12-1972, a notice of censure motion was given as against the Ministry. An attempt was made by the leader of the House to dispense with the question hour, but he could not succeed. At about 12 o'clock on 2-12-1972, when the petitioner announced that the question hour was over, the petitioner's case is that he permitted Sri M. G. Ramachandran to speak on the censure motion which was admittedly not a motion included in the message sent by the Governor ad which could not have been included as the notice was itself given only in the morning of 2-12-1972. The case of the contesting respondents however is that at 12 noon, when the question hour was over, Sri. N. Veeraswami stood up and wanted that his motion for the removal of the Speaker be taken up as such a motion came within the purview of item 8 in the message sent by the Governor as above. As by then the House was aware that nearly 183 members of the Assembly were not in favor of the Speaker occupying the office, the leader of the House moved a resolution in accordance with Art. 181 to the effect that the Deputy Speaker should preside over the House as the House has taken up the resolution for the removal of the Speaker from his office and the same and under consideration. At the behest of the leader of the House, the Deputy Speaker, who has been made a party to these proceedings but who has not chosen to file a counter affidavit but raised a privilege in himself not to be subjected to the jurisdiction of this Court, occupied the Chair and obtained a mandate from the House enabling him to occupy it. It was at this stage that the leader of the House moved another motion under Rule 344 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, for the suspension of the latter part of Rule 53, namely, the circulation of the resolution of removal of the Speaker by the Secretary to all the members of the Assembly, together with an intimation about the date appointed for its discussion. It is claimed that this resolution was also carried by an overwhelming majority. Thereafter the Deputy Speaker sought the leave of the House to move the resolution for the removal of the Speaker given notice of by Thiru Veerasami and others and obtained the leave of the House of consider the same. It is said that Thiru Veerasami spoke on the resolution. After this speech it s claimed that no member stood up or requested the Deputy speaker to permit him to speak on the motion, nor did the petitioner or any of the members of the Opposition Parties seek the leave of the Deputy Speaker to speak on the motion of Thiru Veeraswami. It was in such situation that the motion was put to vote and was carried by a voice vote. The result was that the resolution for the removal of the Speaker which was taken up for consideration and which was ultimately moved and discussed on the floor of the House as a resolution to remove the speaker was accepted by the Assembly and the Speaker is said to have been removed from his office.

(3.) THE above sequence of events are not accepted by the petitioner. According to him, there was no valid notice of motion for his removal on the date when the assembly met, which could be tabled for consideration by it. His case is that he allowed a no confidence motion against the Ministry, given notice of by Thiru M. G. Ramachandran and others, to be discussed, as, according to him, they sought leave under Rule 55 to move the same. As already stated, the censure motion was given notice of only on 2-12-1972. This was not one of these motions which could be taken up for consideration as it did not squarely and patently come within any one or the other of the subjects of discussion itemized by the Governor in his message. Nevertheless the petitioner allowed the belated censure motion moved by Thiru M. G. Ramachandran and is said to have obtained the leave of the House to move the same and permitted the mover to speak thereon. There was pandemonium at that stage and it was only during such a confusion that Thiru veerasami referred to a Memorandum sent to the Speaker as having been given by 184 members and his own resolution for the removal of the Speaker and wanted that it should be given preference and that the said resolution for the removal of the Speaker should be set for consideration forthwith. The petitioner's case is that the 3rd respondent (leader of the House) interrupted and claimed that the Ministry was not afraid of the censure motion, but in view of the fact that a majority of the members were for the resignation of the Speaker as also a specific motion for his removal was under consideration, the petitioner should not occupy the Chair and the Deputy Speaker should be placed therein. There was an uproar and loud protest when the Deputy Speaker occupied the chair and stared contemporaneously along with him and when factually Thiru M. G. Ramachandran was on his legs and was speaking on the censure motion. His case is that the Deputy Speaker strategically occupied the Chair without lawful authority and the subsequent resolution allowed to be moved by him to dispense with a part of R. 53 would be tantamount to a parallel proceeding undertaken by the Deputy Speaker when the Speaker was lawfully functioning and occupying the chair as an officer for the State Assembly. The petitioner would complain that during the tense situation as above there was nothing but uproar and pandemonium inside the Assembly and no one including the Secretary of the legislative Assembly would listen to the directions of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it was all a pre-arranged scheme by the members of the Ruling party and the motion for his removal was not even put to vote as is normal. His case is that on 2-12-1972, after having been apprised of the proposed resolution for his removal from the office he had convened the Business Advisory committee to meet at 1-30 p. m. on that date so as to fix a date for discussion on the resolution for his removal. It is said that the petitioner continued to occupy the chair and was functioning as Speaker and he directed the expunging of the various proceedings illegally conducted by respondents 1 to 3. Lastly the petitioner's case is that as nothing but pandemonium prevailed inside the House he had to adjourn it to Monday 4-12-1972 and retire from the Assembly along with thiru M. G. Ramachandran and others. The petitioner sets up a conspiracy between respondents 1 to 3 and is emphatic that there were two parallel proceedings inside the Assembly and that whilst he was functioning as Speaker the first respondent as Deputy Speaker could not constitutionally functions as the officer in charge of the Assembly as if a vacancy or absenteeism has occurred in that office. The petitioner having learned that resolution for his removal which was under consideration ripened into a discussion and that he was ultimately removed resulting in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 2-12-1972 being issued confirming such removal, has come up to this Court with these writ petitions challenging the entire proceedings, the conduct thereof and the resultant decisions arrived at therein as being irregular and illegal and constitutionally ineffective and therefore prays for the rules under Art. 226 as already stated.