Babulal Marandi vs Speaker
2021 Latest Caselaw 253 Jhar

                             [1]


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020
  Babulal Marandi, aged about 62 years, S/o-Late Chhotu Marandi, at
  Present Leader of Bhartiya Janta Party Legislature Party in Jharkhand
  Vidhan Sabha, R/o-Morabadi, PO-Morabadi & PS-Bariyatu, District-
  Ranchi (Jharkhand).
                                                         . ... Petitioner
                                   Versus

1. Speaker, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Bhawan
  (New), at Dhurwa, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi
  (Jharkhand), Pin Code-834004.

2. Election Commission of India, represented through its Secretary,
  Nirwachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, PO & PS-Ashoka Road, New
  Delhi, District-New Delhi-110001.
                                                       ... Respondents
                                    WITH
                        W.P.(C) No.3654 of 2020
  Bharatiya Janata Party through its Chief Whip (Main Opposition
  Party) Sri Biranchi Narayan, aged about 49 years, son of Sri
  Sadanand Prasad, resident of 33A, Sonatand, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-
  Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro, also present MLA from Bokaro
  Constituency & Member of Bharatiya Janata Party Legislative Party,
  in 5th Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha.
                                                      ... ... Petitioner.
                                    Versus

1. The Hon'ble Speaker, 5th Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Secretariat,
  Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-
  Ranchi, State-Jharkhand.

2. Election Commission of India, Through Secretary, Nirvachan Sadan,
  Ashoka Road, P.O., P.S. & District - New Delhi.

3. Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Jharkhand Vidhan
  Sabha, P.O. & P.S.-Jagarnatpur, District-Ranchi.
                                                     ... ... Respondents
                                  [2]


                                  -------

    CORAM :             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                                  -------

For the Petitioners : Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocate : Mr. R.N.Sahay, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Yashwardhan, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate : Dr. A.K.Singh, Advocate : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate

----------------------------

ORAL ORDER

09/Dated 19th January, 2021

1. The matters have been heard through video conferencing with the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no

complaint about any audio and visual quality.

2. Both the writ petitions have been heard together.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

in the order dated 17.12.2020 at paragraph-8 due to typographical

error "I.A. No.6200 of 2020" has been typed instead of "I.A.

No.6257 of 2020", which requires correction.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised no objection to

such submission.

5. Accordingly, the order dated 17.12.2020 is modified to the extent

that, at paragraph-8, "I.A. No.6200 of 2020" be read as "I.A.

No.6257 of 2020".

[3]

W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020:

6. The instant writ petition has been filed by Shri Babulal Marandi,

claimed Leader of Bhartiya Janta Party Legislature Party in

Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha seeking a direction for quashing and

setting aside the notice dated 18.08.2020 whereby and whereunder

the Speaker, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha has taken suo moto decision

that the subject is affected by the Tenth Schedule of the

Constitution of India and the writ petitioner was directed to produce

evidences before him on 17.09.2020 at 01:00 p.m.

Further relief sought is to hold the notice dated

18.08.2020 issued by the Speaker, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha,

without jurisdiction in view of the decision dated 06.03.2020 by the

Election Commission of India.

It has further been urged by way of relief that the

operation of impugned notice may remain stayed during the

pendency of the writ petition.

W.P.(C) No.3654 of 2020:

7. The instant writ petition has been filed by Bharatiya Janata Party

through its Chief Whip (Main Opposition Party) Sri Biranchi

Narayan seeking a direction for quashing the Letter No.544(O)

dated 18.08.2020 as also Letter No.731(O) dated 02.11.2020 with a

further direction to appoint Shri Babulal Marandi as the Leader of

the Opposition of the 5th Vidhan Sabha.

8. As per the roster, both the writ petitions have been placed before the

learned Single Judge of this Court for its adjudication. Interlocutory [4]

application being I.A. No.6200 of 2020 was filed in W.P.(C)

No.3687 of 2020 and another being I.A. No.6278 of 2020 was filed

in W.P.(C) No.3654 of 2020 seeking leave to amend the writ

petition for addition of relief for a declaration to hold sub-rule (1) of

Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Sadasya (Dal Parivartan Ke

Aadhar Par Nirharta) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the

Rules 2006), as ultra vires.

9. The learned Single Judge heard the said interlocutory applications

and allowed the prayer made therein with a direction upon the

Office to place the matter before the Division Bench of this Court as

after amendment having been allowed, the question of vires of sub-

rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2006 is required to be considered by

a Division Bench, as per the High Court Rules. Thereafter, the

matters have been assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice by an

administrative order dated 15.12.2020 and thereby, the matters

came up before this Court.

10. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ

petitions are that the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3687 of 2020, at

the relevant time, was the Kendriya Adhyaksh (President) of

Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik), hereinafter referred to as

JVM(P), a recognized and registered State Level Political Party by

the Election Commission of India. A meeting of the Central

Working Committee of JVM(P) was held on 11.02.2020 wherein it

was resolved to merge the JVM(P) political party with Bhartiya

Janta Party (hereinafter referred to as BJP), a national political

party. Further, in a meeting of the Legislature Party of the JVM(P) [5]

held on 11.02.2020, it was unanimously resolved to merge JVM(P)

with BJP.

In view of the aforesaid decisions, the President of

JVM(P), the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3687 of 2020, had

written a letter on 11.02.2020 to the Election Commission of India

by enclosing the decision taken in the meeting dated 11.02.2020 by

making a request to take steps as JVM(P) and its legislature party

stand merged with BJP henceforth.

The Election Commission of India vide letter dated

06.03.2020 has informed regarding merger of JVM(P) with BJP.

The fact about the merger has been brought to the notice of the

Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker issued a notice on 18.08.2020 stating that he

has come to believe that there is an issue affecting the Tenth

Schedule of the Constitution of India and as such, the writ petitioner

was directed to produce evidence himself or through Advocate on

17.09.2020.

11. The writ petitioner filed response raising the question of jurisdiction

to the effect that the Speaker of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly

has no power to take suo moto cognizance to treat a case under

Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India as the constitutional

mandate as under Tenth Schedule under Paragraph 6 thereof, the

Speaker has only been conferred with the power to take decision on

questions as to the disqualification on ground of defection if any

question to that effect is referred. Though, in the case in hand no [6]

such issue has been referred by anyone for its adjudication,

however, such power has been exercised by the Speaker in

pursuance to the provision of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules,

2006 which confers power to the Speaker to take suo moto decision

for determining the question of defection in view of the Tenth

Schedule of the Constitution of India.

12. The matters were heard by this Court on 17th December, 2020. An

order was passed keeping the further proceeding in pursuance to the

notice dated 18.08.2020 as initiated against the writ petitioner in

W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020 (Babulal Maandi vs. Speaker, Jharkhand

Vidhan Sabha & Another), in abeyance till the next date of hearing.

13. The counsel for the respondents have been directed to file counter

affidavit with respect to the vires of the provision of sub-rule (1) of

Rule 6 of the Rules, 2006 before the next date of hearing so that the

matter may be decided. Notice was also issued to the learned

Advocate General, State of Jharkhand.

14. The respondent-Speaker, Jhakrhand Vidhan Sabha has filed Special

Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court being Special

Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.73-74 of 2021. The aforesaid appeal

was disposed of vide order dated 12.01.2021. The aforesaid order is

reproduced as hereunder:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since the matter is listed before the High Court for final 2 disposal tomorrow i.e. 13th January, 2021, we are not inclined to entertain these special leave petitions. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.

[7]

However, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter(s) peremptorily. The petitioner(s) is at liberty to raise all questions including the tenability of writ petition(s) of this nature before the High Court.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

15. Both the writ petitions were listed on 13th January, 2021.

Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior counsel appeared for the

Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly and made oral

submission that the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly

(respondent No.1), will not be proceeding any further in the

disqualification proceedings in Tenth Schedule Case No.01/2020

concerning which the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020

were issued which is the subject matter of the instant writ petitions.

Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel had sought for time to

post the matter on 14th January, 2021 to file an affidavit to that

effect and thereby, the matter was adjourned to be listed on

14th January, 2021.

16. The matter was listed on 14th January, 2021 and pressing the

additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, it has

been submitted by referring to the statement made at paragraph-5

thereof, that the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, shall not

be proceeding any further in the disqualification proceedings in the

Tenth Schedule Case No.01/2020 concerning which notices dated

18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020 were issued, and which are subject

matter of the instant writ petitions.

[8]

17. Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel has submitted that although a

detailed affidavit has been filed on the merit of the issue but, since

the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly has taken a conscious

decision not to proceed in pursuance to the notices dated 18.08.2020

and 02.11.2020, both the writ petitions be rendered to be

infructuous since the cause of action pertaining to questioning the

notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020 on the ground of the

statutory provision conferred upon the Speaker as under Rule 6(1)

of the Rules, 2006 which confers power to suo moto initiate

proceeding for disqualification under Tenth Schedule of the

Constitution of India since, was no more in operation by virtue of

the aforesaid decision of the Speaker of the Assembly. As such, the

question of validity of the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006

has become merely an academic issue. It is settled about the

practice of the Hon'ble Apex Court not to decide academic

questions and accordingly, the issue/question can be left open for its

adjudication in some other matter when such issue arises. Reliance

has been placed upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex

Court in A.K. Roy vs. Union of India and Others, (1982) 1 SCC

271, Padmakar Balkrishna Samant vs. Abdul Rehman Antulay

and Anr., (1984) 2 SCC 183 and Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar,

(2001) 7 SCC 657.

18. Per contra Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020 and Mr. R.Venkataramani, learned

counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3654 of 2020 have

submitted, referring the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in [9]

Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.73-74 of 2021, that the Hon'ble

Apex Court, in explicit terms, has requested the High Court to

dispose of the matter peremptorily granting liberty to the petitioners

(respondents herein) to raise all questions including the tenability of

the writ petition(s) of this nature before the High Court. In that view

of the matter, the issue pertaining to validity of the provision of

Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 is required to be answered irrespective

of the fact that the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020 have

been made inoperative.

It has been submitted that if an issue has been raised, the

same cannot be rendered to be infructuous rather it has to be

decided by the Court of Law. Reliance has been placed upon the

decisions rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Ravi and Others

vs. Union of India and Others, (2007) 15 SCC 631, Naz

Foundation vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2016) 15

SCC 619 and one unreported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in

M/s Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. vs. Union of

India and Others (Civil Appeal No.3821 of 2020).

19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated

rival submissions on the issues. Admittedly, the petitioners have

questioned the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020. In course

of proceeding when the matter was in seisin of the learned Single

Judge of this Court, an amendment was sought to question the

validity of the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006, so far as it

empowers the Speaker to proceed even suo moto and which was

allowed. As such, initially the entire relief sought for by the [10]

petitioners in both the writ petitions were to be heard by learned

Single Judge taking into consideration the nature of relief sought for

therein, however, after the amendment pertaining to the validity of

the statute having been allowed, the matter came before this Court

(Division Bench) for considering the question of validity of the

aforesaid provision.

20. This Court has considered the factual aspect vis-à-vis the issue of

validity of the provision as contained in Rule 6(1) of the Rules,

2006 and considering the entire facts, i.e., issuance of notices and

validity of the provision as contained in Rule 6(1) of the Rules,

2006 passed an interim order keeping the notice dated 18.08.2020 in

abeyance.

21. We, after deliberating the issues and considering the rival

submissions advanced on behalf of the parties as also the

proposition of law, passed an order to the effect which reads as

hereunder:

"We are not expressing at this stage any final opinion on merit but whatever is being said that is for the purpose of considering the fact as to whether the writ petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for passing an interim order or not."

The prime consideration in passing the order was the

issue of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and the

provision contained under Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006.

It is further evident that although the validity of the

statutory provision has been questioned in both the writ petitions

after amendment having been allowed by the learned Single Judge [11]

in both the writ petitions but this Court, after taking into

consideration the fact that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3687 of

2020 who is a Legislative Member of the Jharkhand Legislative

Assembly against whom the notice dated 18.08.2020 was issued for

disqualification in exercise of power conferred under Tenth

Schedule to the Speaker, directed that the operation of the notice

dated 18.08.2020 shall be kept in abeyance since it may adversely

affect the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020, meaning thereby,

this Court has considered the fact about the legality and propriety of

the notice dated 18.08.2020 vis-à-vis the validity of the provision of

Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006.

22. When the case was listed for hearing, the order of Hon'ble Apex

Court was placed by the learned counsel for the parties passed in

Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.73-74 of 2021 as referred and

quoted above. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 14.01.2021 an

affidavit was filed by the Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly

before this Court, paragraph-5 of which is being reproduced

hereinbelow:

"5. That the Hon'ble Speaker, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly (Respondent No.1 herein) shall not be proceeding any further in the disqualification proceedings in Tenth Schedule Case No.01/2020, concerning which notices dated 18th August, 2020 and 02nd November, 2020 were issued which is also under challenge in the present Writ petitions."

23. Now the question would be, whether after the decision of the

Speaker for not proceeding any further in the disqualification

proceedings in Tenth Schedule Case No.01/2020, will it be proper [12]

for this Court to go into the validity of the provision of Rule 6(1) of

the Rules, 2006?

24. Rival submissions have been made in this regard by placing reliance

upon various decisions of the Apex Court. Paragraph-28 of the

judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K. Roy vs. Union

of India and Others (supra) reads as under:

"28. There are, however, two reasons why we do not propose to discuss at greater length the question as regards the justiciability of the President's satisfaction under Article 123(1) of the Constitution. In the first place, the ordinance has been replaced by an Act. It is true, as contended by Shri Tarkunde, that if the question as regards the justiciability of the President's satisfaction is not to be considered for the reason that the ordinance has become an Act, the occasion will hardly ever arise for considering that question because, by the time the challenge made to an ordinance comes up for consideration before the court, the ordinance almost invariably shall have been replaced by an Act. All the same, the position is firmly established in the field of constitutional adjudication that the court will decide no more than needs to be decided in any particular case. Abstract questions present interesting challenges, but it is for scholars and textbook writers to unravel their mystique. It is not for the courts to decide questions which are but of academic importance."

It is evident from the said judgment that the validity of

the Ordinance was the subject matter but the Ordinance has been

replaced by an Act, as such, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down

that since the Ordinance has become an Act, hence, nothing

survives to be decided because it is not for the Courts to decide

question which are but of academic importance.

The factual aspect of A.K. Roy vs. Union of India and

Others's (supra) case is different to that of the facts of the case in [13]

hand since therein the Ordinance had taken the shape of an Act and

as such, the Ordinance had lost its efficacy, therefore, the Hon'ble

Apex Court did not proceed to decide the legality and propriety of

the Ordinance on the pretext that the same has become of academic

value.

In Padmakar Balkrishna Samant vs. Abdul Rehman

Antulay and Anr. (supra) the question about the competency to

sanction prosecution of MLA as envisaged by Section 6 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was the issue. The Hon'ble

Apex Court came to a conclusive finding in the aforesaid case that

MLA is not a public servant within the meaning of the expression in

Section 21 of IPC. No sanction is necessary to prosecute him for the

offences alleged to have been committed by him and in view of the

aforesaid consequence, the question of competent authority to

sanction prosecution of MLA as envisaged by Section 6 has become

one academic interest, therefore, by referring to the said practice of

the Hon'ble Apex Court not to decide the academic questions, the

question was left open.

In Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar (supra) at paragraph-6 the

Apex Court has observed about the settled practice not to decide

matters which are only of academic interest on the facts on a

particular case.

25. On the other hand, the petitioners have relied upon the judgment

rendered in N. Ravi and Others vs. Union of India and Others

(supra) in which the validity of Section 499 of the Penal Code was

questioned since the complaint case was filed under the penal [14]

provision of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code but all the

complaints were withdrawn and in that pretext it has been observed

in the aforesaid judgment that after withdrawal of the complaints,

though the prayer about the validity of Section 499 has also become

academic but having regard to the importance of the question, the

Hon'ble Apex Court was in agreement with the learned counsel for

the petitioners that the validity aspect deserves to be examined.

In Naz Foundation vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and

Others (supra) the Constitutional validity of Section 377 of the

Penal Code, 1860 was questioned and the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that the High Court, without examining the issue,

dismissed the writ petition observing that there is no cause of action

in favour of the appellant as the petition cannot be filed to test the

validity of the Legislation, therefore, it cannot be entertained to

examine the academic challenge to the constitutionality of the

provision. Hence, the order passed by the High Court was set aside

remanding it for fresh decision.

In M/s Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.

vs. Union of India and Others (supra) the validity of Section

40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was questioned. The High

Court had refused to interfere observing that the assessment

proceeding was pending before the assessing officer. However, the

liberty was left upon the writ petitioner to raise the issue of validity

of the aforesaid section before the assessing authority. However, the

Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court

since the very issue which fell before the assessing officer pertains [15]

to the question of legality and propriety of Section 40(a)(iib) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 which cannot be adjudicated by the statutory

authority rather it has to be tested by the High Court itself under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the matter was

remitted before the High Court to decide the writ petition on merit

with respect to the challenge to the vires of Section 40(a)(iib) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961.

26. So far as the judgment rendered in M/s Tamil Nadu State

Marketing Corporation Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others (supra)

is concerned, in our considered view that is not applicable in the

facts of this case. In the aforesaid matter, the assessing officer was

incompetent to decide the issue of validity of the concerned

statutory provision. However, in the case in hand the facts are quite

different as the Speaker, who had issued notices in alleged suo moto

exercise of power has undertaken not to proceed in the case in

which the impugned notices were issued.

27. We have also considered the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex

Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Narender Singh, (2005) 6

SCC 106 wherein it has been observed that a writ petition

questioning the Tribunal's order on merit does not become

infructuous on giving effect to the Tribunal's order. Relevant are

paragraphs-5 & 6, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:

"5. The High Court's order is clearly indefensible. A writ petition questioning the Tribunal's order on merits does not become infructuous by giving effect to the Tribunal's order. Merely because the order of reinstatement had been implemented by the appellant, that did not render the writ petition infructuous as has been observed by the High Court.

[16]

This position was clearly stated in Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar [(1973) 4 SCC 183 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 374] . In para 23 of the decision it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 193)

"23. Mr Singhvi, learned counsel, then referred us to the fact that after the judgment of the High Court the State Government has passed an order on 19-3-1971, the effect of which is to equate the Sales Tax Officers of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade III, of Bombay. This order, in our opinion, has been passed by the State Government only to comply with the directions given by the High Court. It was made during a period when the appeal against the judgment was pending in this Court. The fact that the State Government took steps to comply with the directions of the High Court cannot lead to the inference that the appeal by the Union of India has become infructuous."

6. The expression infructuous means ineffective, unproductive and unfruitful. It is derived from the Latin word "fructus" (fruit). By implementing an order, the challenge to the validity of the order is not wiped out and is not rendered redundant."

28. So far as the fact of the case in hand is concerned, admittedly, when

the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge, no relief

about validity of the statutory provision as contained under Rule

6(1) of the Rules, 2006 was in question, however, by virtue of the

amendment having been allowed pertaining to the relief of

questioning the validity of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2006 and in

consequence of the aforesaid order allowing the amendment, the

validity of the statutory provision as contained under Rule 6(1) of

the Rules, 2006 has become one of the reliefs sought in the writ

petitions.

[17]

29. We, after considering the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, are of the view that so far as the notices dated 18.08.2020

and 02.11.2020 are concerned, by virtue of the statement made in

the concerned affidavit, the same has become ineffective, as such,

to that effect the writ petitions can be held to have become

infructuous.

However, having said so, the issue of validity of the

concerned Rule definitely does not become academic as there is

every likelihood that the question may emerge again and again.

Whenever, the Speaker will come across such issue in future, the

factum of prima facie observation of this Court may always stir his

or others mind. Since the question to be considered is serious and

important one, in our considered opinion, it should not be left open

specially when, even considering the same to be academic, will

definitely not render the writ petition infructuous as there are other

questions raised in the writ petitions are also to be decided and,

thus, at least one of the writ petitions would definitely remain alive

for deciding the reliefs sought other than the issue of validity of

Rules.

30. We have emphatically considered the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Naz Foundation vs. Government (NCT of

Delhi) and Others (supra) wherein the High Court in exercise of

power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had

dismissed the writ petition questioning the validity of Section 377 in

view of lack of cause of action in favour of the appellant. However, [18]

the same was quashed and set aside remitting the matter to the High

Court for a decision on the issue.

We have also considered the judgment rendered in Union

of India and Ors. Vs. Narender Singh (supra) wherein it has been

observed that even if the order of Tribunal has been given effect to,

the order on merit is required to be tested and in that view of the

matter, the writ petitions cannot be rendered to be infructuous.

31. We have also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.73-74 of 2021 as

quoted and referred above wherein this Court has been directed to

dispose of the matters peremptorily. The word "peremptorily" has

been used in the said order and as per the Black's Law Dictionary,

the meaning of "peremptory" is commanding in imperative way or

decisive to preclude further question or debate, therefore, we are not

in agreement with the arguments advanced by Mr. Sibal, learned

senior counsel for the respondents that the issue of validity of Rule

6(1) of the Rules, 2006 has become an academic issue.

Accordingly, we are of the firm view that the writ petitions

pertaining to the validity of the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Rules,

2006 and other reliefs, is required to be considered and decided by

this Court.

32. We are further of the view that the interim order passed by this

Court on 17th December, 2020 to the effect that the notice dated

18.08.2020 shall be kept in abeyance is required to be recalled in

view of the stand having been taken by the Speaker, Jharkhand

Legislative Assembly at paragraph-5 of the additional affidavit [19]

stating in clear terms that he shall not be proceeding any further in

disqualification proceedings in Tenth Schedule Case No.01/2020, in

which the notices dated 18.08.2020 and 02.11.2020 were issued.

The order granting interim relief has now lost its efficacy.

Accordingly, the interim relief granted vide order dated 17.12.2020

stands vacated.

33. Since in W.P.(C) No.3654 of 2020, the Secretary, Jharkhand

Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha is already a

party, therefore, prayer has been made on behalf of the learned

counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020 that in this

case also, the Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat,

Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha may be impleaded as party-respondent.

34. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised no objection to

such submission.

Accordingly, Office is directed to implead Secretary,

Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha as

party-respondent in W.P.(C) No.3687 of 2020.

35. As agreed by parties, let the matters be listed on 02.03.2021 for

further hearing.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh

A.F.R.