ivil Appeal No 5483 of 1983
From the Judgment and Order dated 710
1982 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in MP No 169 of 1982
RF Nariman and PH Parekh for the Appellants
VN Ganpule VM Tarkunde SK Agnihotri SK Sinha Rajinder Narain RS Singh and Rameshwar Nath for the Respondents
The appellant a partnership firm filed the writ petition seeking writ of mandamus and other direction to remove Rajdhani Distilleries Corporation the 7th respondent in the writ petition in the High Court and 6th respondent in this appeal for short respondent  or his servants  or agents  and to deliver vacant and peace ful possession of U j jain Distillery and warehouses at tached to it and the plant and machinery mentioned in the schedule Annexure P 3 to the writ petition
It also sought for mandamus or other order to have the valuation of the plant and machinery in Annexure P 3 assessed or direction to return the goods or things described in Annexure P 7 or on its failure to pay a sum of Rs84817928 and a mandamus directing the State Govt
to terminate the licence granted on August 25 1981 to the respondent and to issue licence to the appellant under section 13 of the MP Excise Act 19 15 for short the Act  etc
Thus this appeal
The material facts to dispose of the point arose in this appeal lie 482 in a short compass as stated hereunder In the State of Madhya Pradesh nine distilleries for the manufacture of spirit were established and one of which was situated at Ujjain
The appellant and its predecessors continuously had licence under sections 13 and 14 of the Act in form D 2 to distil rectified spirit or denatured spirit or liquor and D I licence for wholesale supply of country made liquor in the distillery to retail vendors in the area attached to the distillery
The licence was for a period of 5 years
The last licence of which was for the period from April 1 1977 to March 31
The normal procedure in vogue was to call for tenders and the lowest was being accepted though sometimes highest was also preferred
Next licensing period commenced from April 1 198 1 to March 31 1986 and the respondent became the successful tenderer which the appellant impugned in Misc
Petition No 70181 and obtained stay of dispossession from the distillery and the attached warehouses The interim stay was later vacated and the petition was dismissed on August 20 198 1
We may also mention here that the writ petition was also dismissed and the special leave petition was dismissed by this court
Thus grant of licence to the respondent under D 1 and D 2 li cences became final
On August 21 1981 the Officer in Charge of the distillery wrote a letter to the appellant calling upon them to be present on August 22 1981 to deliv er the distillery plant machinery etc
to the respondent
The appellant neither received it nor cooperated to deliver possession of the distillery etc
to the respondent
In stead it locked the distillery and went away
In the mean while the Excise Department also put their locks on the distillery etc
On August 27
1981 the District Excise Officer again called upon the appellant to be present on August 28 1981 to deliver possession of the distillery etc
to the respondent
But the appellant remained absent
Consequently possession was taken of the distillery and warehouses after taking inventory of stock in hand in the presence of the witnesses and the same were handed over to the respondent on August 28 1981
The appellant sent a letter on February 23 1982 valuing the goods taken posses sion of at Rs83698861
On August 8 1982 the appellant demanded redelivery of the distillery plant and machinery and warehouses and the value of the stock in trade or pay the amount
On March 16 1982 the appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court but was dismissed
The appellant contended in the High Court that it had been in exclusive possession of the distillery plant and machinery at Ujjain and the attached warehouses and dispossession was unlawful and that 483 therefore the appellant was entitled to restitution of the plant and machinery and also to the grant of licence after cancellation of the licence granted to the respondent
The High Court found that the appellant had no exclusive posses sion which always remained with the Excise Department
The appellant worked out the contract of manufacturing rectified spirit or spirit country made liquor in the distillery and wholesale supply to the retail vendors within the area attached to the distillery
Due to non cooperation of the appellant possession was taken and delivered to the incoming licensee the respondent as per rules and the appellant was not entitled to restitution
The other findings are not necessary as they are not pressed before this court
The appellant had given up the reliefs of valuation of the plant and machinery and stock in trade
During the pendency of the appeal on an application made by the appellant this court directed the state to make over payment of a sum of Rs 10 lacs deposited by the respondent with the State Govt
and also further directed the respondent to deposited sum of Rs5 lacs in the Registry of this court and directed the Registry to keep that amount in fixed deposit to earn inter est thereon subject to adjustment at the final hearing
Despite issuance of several notices by the department the appellant did not cooperate in the estimate of the value of the plant and machinery of the distillery and warehouses
the Committee appointed in terms of the conditions of the licence fixed a sum of Rs 105301645 as total value payable to the appellant
Since a sum of Rs 10 lacs had already been paid the appellant is still entitled to the balance amount of Rs5301645
RF Nariman learned counsel for the appellant in his thorough and analytical arguments based on record made a shift in the stand and now contended that on a read ing of several clauses in the licence exhibit P 2 in particu lar clause 50 enjoins the state to fix the valuation of all materials like buildings still machinery etc
belonging to the appellant as an outgoing licensee should be pur chased by the respondent before the expiry of the contract and commencement of the succeeding contract of the respond ent the Committee appointed by the Excise Department in this behalf should estimate fair valuation and payment thereto be made to the appellant before taking over posses sion and handing over the plant and machinery of the dis tillery and the attached warehouses to the respondents as a condition precedent to dispossess the appellant and start the operation of the contract by the respondent which admit tedly were not done
This is in contravention of the manda tory conditions of the licence and the rules
The 484 appellant therefore is entitled to restitution of the plant and machinery of the distillery and the attached warehouses illegally taken possession of by the respondent and the state
In support thereof he placed strong reliance in Godhra Electricity Co Ltd  Anr
vs State of Gujarat  Ors
  He also referred to us in support of his contention various documents
In our view it is not necessary to dwelve deep into them
Sri Ganpule and Sri Tarkunde the learned senior counsel for the State and the respondent
contended that the appellant was requested twice to be present for delivery of the plant and machinery in the distillery and warehouses to the respondent and due to its non cooperation possession was taken
Even for the assess ment of the valuation before the expiry of the contract
the appellant was given several notices requesting it to furnish the evidence of the value of the plant and machinery stock in trade etc and due to its non cooperation
the valuation could not be made
Prior valuation and payment are not condition precedent to work out the licence
The appel lant has no right to the restitution after the expiry of the licence
Sri Tarkunde in particular emphasised that the restitution prayed for became infructuous on account of the subsequent events namely pursuant to December 1984 Govt
policy the respondents established their distillery at U j jain at their own expenses
The second period of licence also expired in 1991
There was further change in the policy of the Govt
 namely each District was made a supply area under a separate licence for two years
Under these circumstances the appellant is not entitled to any reliefs
It is also further contended that the conditions in the licence in exhibit P 2 marked in the High Court should be read harmoniously
It is clear that prior fixation of the valuation and the payment of the price is not a condition precedent
The ratio in Godhra Electricity Co Ltd case is inapplicable to the facts of this case
The sole question is whether fixation of the price of the plants and machinery at Ujjain and the attached ware houses and stock in trade and payment thereof to the appel lant is a condition precedent to take possession and deliv ery thereof to the respondent on August 28 1981
At the outset we may make it clear that though Sri Nariman con tended that the grant of licence to the respondent was in gross violation of the conditions of the tender as the respondent did not comply with any of the mandatory condi tions stipulated therein and the delivery of the possession of the distillery in pursuance of the illegal contract is without jurisdiction we decline to go into this question though prima facie may be plausible to be countenanced for the 485 reasons that the grant of licence for the period of 1981 to 1986 to the respondent became final and expired by efflux of time
It was also contended by Sri Nariman that the valua tion made at Rs 10530 1645 was not proper and contrary to the tender s conditions which stipulated deposit of a minimum of Rs 19 lacs by the respondent as a condition to grant licence and that therefore the appellant is enti tled to valuation of at least Rs 19 lacs
We decline to go into that question also since the relief of valuation was given up in the High Court
It is also clear from the record that the appellant had not cooperated in estimating the value and the Committee of designated officers namely the Addl
Collector the District Excise Officer Astt
Commis sioner of Excise and Accounts Officers was compelled to go into the question and made an assessment of the value on January 5 1984
That valuation was also not questioned in the writ petition
To find whether it is a condition precedent to fix the valuation of the plants and machinery of the distillery and the warehouses and the stock in trade and payment thereof before taking over possession and handing over the same to the incoming licencee the material clause 50 to be looked into reads thus All the materials like buildings still machinery drums wood fuel coal mahua bottling machinery bottles spices red sealing wax coaltar pilfer proof seals crown corks alongwith alu capsules etc
belonging to the outgoing licensee purchased for the use of distillery and warehouses attached thereto shall be valued before the expiry of the old contract and the commence ment of the new one by a committee appointed by the Excise Department in this behalf
The committee aforesaid shall be appointed by the Excise Commissioner under the previous sanc tion of the Government Separate Revenue Department and it shall consist of five members namely 1 Collector or Additional Collector convenor 2 Assistant Commissioner of Excise of the Division concerned member 3 Executive Engineer Technical member 4 Accounts Officer of the Excise Department Member and 5 Representative of the licensee Member
If the representative of the licensee remains absent in the committee at the appointed time the remaining four members shall begin their work in his absence and no objection of the licensee in this respect shall be heard
The valuation made and agreed upon by the Committee shall be sanc tioned by the Excise Commis 486 sioner with such necessary changes as he deems fit and in case of difference of opinion amongst the members the Excise Commissioner shall pass orders relating to disputed valua tion
The orders of Excise Commissioner shall be final and binding upon the licensee
Note The valuation of sanctioned plant at the warehouses may be done by a committee consisting of some of the members of the above referred committee subject to the orders of the Excise Commissioner which shall be final and binding on the licensee
Prima facie if the clause by itself is read in isola tion it would indicate that prior fixation of the value and payment is a condition precedent
But in our view all the conditions of the licence policy of the Act and Rule of the possession manufacture supply sale and distribution of the rectified spirit or denatured spirit or liquor from the stage of manufacture in Distillery till retail sale to the consumer be viewed as an integrated whole and the human behaviour of the outgoing licensee also has to be kept in view
Any other view would disrupt smooth transition from the outgoing to the incoming licensee hampers the continui ty of supply and sale of intoxicants and cause collosal loss of public revenue
So let us consider the relevant proposi tions from this background
Section 13 of the Act requires a licensee to manufacture intoxicants a Licence is required for manufacture etc
of intoxicants b No intoxicant shall be manufactured or collected    f No person shall induce keep in his possession any material  for the purpose of manufacture of intoxicants other than tari except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of the licence granted in that behalf
Section 14 provides that a establish a distillery in which spirit may be manufactured under licence granted under section 13 on such conditions as the Govt
may impose 487 C license on such conditions as the State Govt
may impose the construction and working of the distillery and brewery c establish or licence warehouses wherein any intoxicant may be deposited and kept without payment of duty subject to payment of such fee as the State Govt
may direct 
Section 17 provides inter alia that no intoxicant shall be sold except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of licence granted in that behalf
Thus it is clear that establishment of a distillery or a warehouse manufacture of intoxicants spirit country made liquor the possession and distribution and sale thereof are regulated under the Act
The Govt
in exercise of its power under section 62 of the Act made rules regulating the control of distilleries and warehouses by Officers of the Excise Department especially appointed by the Excise Commissioner for that purpose
Therefore any licensee under the Act and the Rules be it incoming or outgoing should have D 2 and D I licences for establishment of distillery and warehouses possession of raw materials manufacture of liquor or rectified spirit or denatured spirit and supply to the retail vendors of the area attached to the distillery
Any infraction is an of fence
It is settled law by several decisions of this court that there is no fundamental right to a citizen to carry on trade or business in liquor
The state under its regulatory power has power to prohibit absolutely any form of activity in relation to an intoxicant its manufacture possession import and export
No one can claim as against the state the right to carry on trade or business in any intoxicants nor the state be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacture sale storage of liquor
Fur ther when the state has decided to part with such right or privilege to the others then state can regulate consistent with the principles of equality enshrined under article 14 and any infraction in this behalf at its pleasure are arbitrary violating Article 14
Therefore the exclusive right or privilege of manufacture storage sale import and export of the liquor through any agency other than the state would be subject to rigour of Article 14
Vide Har Shankar  Ors
vs Dy
Excise  Taxation Commissioner  Ors and State of M Pv
Nandial Jaiswal
  488 When the state was dealing with the grant of the privi lege of establishing or manufacturing intoxicants rectified spirit or denatured spirit spirit country made liquor in a distillery owned or regulated by it and invites tenders in this regard it should conform to the rigour of article 14 of the Constitution
Admittedly the licence of the appellant expired on March 31 1981 and thereafter it had no right to manufacture and store at distillery in Ujjain and distribu tion as wholesaler of the country made liquor from the attached warehouses to the retail vendors within that area granted to the respondent
But for the stay granted by the High Court the operation of the respondent s licence was to begin on April 1198 1
The outgoing licensee the appel lant had to hand it over to the respondent on that date
The conditions in the licence P 2 postulate of mutual rights and obligations between the outgoing licensee to sell and the incoming licensee to purchase the plant and machinery of the distillery stock in trade and also the machinery in the warehouse including the apparatus etc
enumerated in the conditions either at the price fixed or agreed directly between the parties or fixed by the committee of the desig nated officers
In case of any difference in the valuation between the members the Commissioner of the Excise or the State Govt
would fix the valuation which was made final
The Committee designated was to be constituted with prior approval of the Govt
as per condition 50 to evaluate the plant and machinery of the distillery and some of them of the warehouses
Outgoing licensee also is entitled to repre sent in the Committee
On his non cooperation the rest of the four members of the Committee are empowered to determine the value
Clause 23iii provides that any dispute relating to valuation of the sanctioned plant shall be referred to the State Government and the decision of the State Govt
shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute
Clause 2 thereof refers that the licensee shall made over the said distillery and warehouses buildings on the termination of the licence in as good condition as they were at the com mencement hereof excluding reasonable wear and tear
Clause 364 provides that any dispute relating to the sale of spirit or plant by the licensee or the valuation of the plant shall be referred to the State Govt
and the decision of the State Govt
shall be final and binding
Clause 391 in particular mentions that at the commencement of the term of this licence the licensee shall buy all sanctioned plant at the U j jain distillery including spare parts furniture motor trucks and fittings at a price to be fixed by the State Government
Licensee shall pay the price thereof within 30 days of the communication
Similarly clause 41 421 and clause 44 provide that the incoming licensee shall take on lease all 489 other buildings structures attached to the distillery at Ujjain on such conditions and terms as per Public Works Department Manual Vol
II within a period of one month of the intimation of the acceptance of the tender
Then comes clause 50 quoted hereinabove
The incoming licensee shall make payment within 30 days from the date of communication of the value
Therefore the courts should adopt realism pragmatism practicality and the purpose envisaged under the Act and the rules in construing the relevant clauses in the licence
The purpose of the Act the rules made therein is to regulate the manufacture distribution sale of the intoxicants rectified spirit or denatured spirit liquor sale to consumers within the state of Madhya Pradesh
It is an on going process conducted through the licensing system an exclusive privi lege of the state through the licences granted under form D 1 and D 2 in this behalf
The duration of the licence is fixed one
On expiry of the licence the outgoing licensee shall be bound to handover the distillery plant and machin ery therein and warehouses attached thereto the stock in trade and other apparatus and goods used for the manufac ture storage and distribution
The outgoing contractor is entitled continue his business activity till the last date of the licence namely March 31 of the ending year
The succeeding licensee would take over the business from the outgoing licensee on April 1 of the year of licence
Thus there should be no hiatus between taking over and handing over the manufacture possession
storage of the wholesale business of the spirit country made liquor or rectified spirit or denatured spirit
Under these circumstances it will well nigh be impossible to assess the valuation of the entire stock in trade or plant and machinery in the distill ery or the warehouses till the last date
In addition the cooperation of the outgoing licensee is also necessary and expected as he would be in possesssion of the records of the previous purchases of the materials or plant or machinery if any new additions are made etc
Unless they are made available it is not possible to assess the value after giving due rebate or depreciation etc
to the incoming licensee
The human nature and conduct would be such that the outgoing licensee being the unsuccessful tenderer would not cooperate in handing over possession of the dis tillery and stock in trade and would approach the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution as was done in this case
The incoming licensee has time of thirty days in case of stock in trade or three months in the case of plant and machinery from the date of communication to him to pay the value to the outgoing licensee
Keeping those circumstances at the back of our mind we decline to adopt lexographic strict construction of clause 50 which 490 would thwart continuity create hiatus in smooth operation of manufacture storage distribution and sales of the intoxicants
Moreover after the assessment is made and in case of any difference of opinion in the valuation or the outgoing licensee claims higher value the final arbiter would be in some cases like stock in trade the Commissioner of Excise and in case of plant and machinery or warehouses the State Govt
After the decision of the Commissioner or the State Government it shall be communicated to the suc ceeding licensee who has been given maximum period of three months to make payment to the outgoing licensee
In the light of the scheme of valuation of the plant and machinery of the distillery or the apparatus in the warehouses and the stock in trade we hold that strict construction would lead to innumerable complications and loss of public reve nue
We are inclined to hold that before the expiry of the licence if the outgoing licensee cooperates the value can be fixed with consensus payment should also be made within the time stipulated
In all other cases it could be done even after the expiry of the stipulated period
In that perspective we have no hesitation to hold that prior valua tion of plant and machinery in the distillery stock in trade therein or the value of the machinery in the ware houses and stock of the liquor stored therein and payment thereof before taking possession and handing them over to the incoming licensee is not a mandatory nor a condition precedent
Therefore taking over possession from the appel lant on August 28 1981 and handing over the plant and machinery etc
to the respondent is not illegal
Undoubtedly this court in Godhra Electricity case held that it is mandatory that a person who is deprived of his property before its taking over the value should be esti mated and the payment made or else it is illegal
But the ratio would be considered in the light of the setting there in
The licence granted under section 6 of the as amended in 1959 to produce electrical energy was acquired by the Electricity Board
Section 66 provides that where a notice exercising the option of purchasing the undertaking has been served upon the licence the licensee shall deliver the undertaking to the State Electricity Board on expiry of the relevant period referred to in section 61
In that case the constitutional validity of section 66 was ques tioned which did not provide for payment before taking over of the undertaking as offending Article 191f and g and article 14 of the constitution
While considering the constitu tional validity of section 66 this court held that valuation and payment is a condition precedent since the Act did not envisage any payment of interest subsequent thereto
Accord ingly this court directed redelivery of the undertaking 491 to the licensee subject to follow the procedure as per law laid down therein
In this case admittedly the conditions of licence are not questioned but expressly given up in the High Court
Even before us the validity of the valuation has not been questioned
It cannot cut the branch on which the appellant sits to assail the constitutional validity of the conditions of the licence
Accordingly we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant is not entitled to the restitu tion of the plant and machinery of the distillery at Ujjain and the attached warehouses
The appellant though claimed that the value of the plant and machinery was too low contrary to the specification in this behalf in tender condition and though we decline to go into the question the appellant appeared to have smarted under apprehension that it had to face the plea of acquies cence if it were to cooperate earlier
So it is open to the appellant to make a representation to the Govt
and any officer not below a Secretary preferably of the concerned Department would go into the matter and decide the value as per the material on record
It is open to the appellant to place all its material
It is also open to the respondent to place its material and the authority would consider after giving an opportunity of hearing through counsel if asked for and decide the value accordingly
As regards deposit now made in the Registry of this Court the Registry is directed to make payment of a sum of Rs5301645 and inter est accrued thereon to the appellant and the balance amount and the interest accrued on the residual to the respondent and the respondent s liability would be subject to the decision by the Secretary as indicated in the judgment
The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent and since the appellant substantially failed there would be no order as to costs
YL Appeal partly allowed


Summary:
The petitioner the Editor of the English daily newspaper Searchlight of Patna was called upon by the Secretary of the Patna Legislative Assembly to show cause before the Committee of Privileges of the Assembly why appropriate action should not be taken against him for the breach of privileges of the Speaker and the Assembly for publishing in its entirety a speech delivered in the Assembly by a member thereof portions of which were directed to be expunged by the Speaker
It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the said notice and the proposed action by the Committee were in violation of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under article 191a and of the protection of his personal liberty under article 21 of the Constitution and that as an editor of a newspaper he was entitled to all the benefits of the freedom of the Press
The respondents relied on article 1943 Of the Constitution and claimed that the proceedings in the House as those in the British House of Commons were not usually meant to be published and in no circumstances was it permissible to publish the parts of a 807 speech which were directed to be expunged and therefore formed no part of the official report and such publication was in clear breach of the privileges of the Assembly
The points for determination were 1 Could the British House of Commons entirely prohibit the publication of its proceedings or even of such portions of them as had been directed to be expunged  2 Assuming that the British House of Commons had such power and consequently the State Legislature also had such power under Article 1943 could the privileges of the Legislature under that Article prevail over the fundamental right guaranteed by article 191a The Bihar Legislature not having admittedly made any law governing its powers and privileges under Entry 39 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution the question naturally was as to what were the powers privileges and immunities of the British House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution
Held per Das C J Bhagwati Sinha and Wanchoo jj that there could be no doubt that the liberty of the Press was implicit in the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to a citizen under article 191a of the Constitution and that must include the freedom of propagation of ideas ensured by the freedom of circulation
Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras   Brijbhushan vs The State of Delhi  and Express Newspaper Ltd vs Union of India  relied on
The liberty of the Press in India flowed from this freedom of speech and expression of a citizen and stood on no higher footing and no privilege attached to the Press as such
Arnold vs King Emperor 1914 LR 41 IA 149 referred to
A survey of the evolution of Parliamentary privileges in England showed beyond doubt that at the commencement of the Indian Constitution the British House of Commons had the power or privilege of prohibiting the publication of even a true and faithful report of the debates or proceedings that took place in the House and with greater reason the power and privilege of prohibiting publication of an inaccurate or garbled version of such debates and proceedings
These were the powers and privileges that article 1943 conferred on State Legislatures and article 053 conferred on the Houses of Parliament in India
It would not be correct to contend that article 191a of the Constitution controlled the latter half of article 1943 or of article 1053 Of the Constitution and that the powers privileges and immunities conferred by them must yield to the fundamental right of the citizen under article 191a
As articles 1943 and 1053 stood in the same supreme position as the provisions of Part III of the Constitution and could not be affected by article 13 the principle of harmonious construction must be adopted
808 So construed the provisions of article 191a which were general must yield to article 1941 and the latter part of its cl
3 which are special and article 191a could be of no avail to the petitioner
Ramjilal vs Income tax Officer Mohindergarh 1951 SCR a 127 and Laxamanappa Hanumantappa vs Union of India   applied
Anand Bihayi Mishra vs Ram Sahay AIR 1952 MB 31 disapproved
Gunapati Keshavyam Reddy vs Nafisul Hasan AIR 1954 SC 636 explained as having proceeded on concession by counsel
Nor could the petitioner complain of any breach actual or threatened of his fundamental right under article 21 of the Constitution since article 1943 read with the rules framed by the Bihar Legislative Assembly in exercise of its power under article 208 of the Constitution laid down the procedure for enforcing its powers privileges and immunities under that Article and any deprivation of his personal liberty as a result of the proceedings before the Committee of Privileges would be in accordance with procedure established by law
Held further that it was not for this Court to prescribe any particular period for moving a privilege motion so as to make the subject matter of the motion a specific matter of recent occurrence within the meaning of the said rules
This was a matter for the speaker alone to decide
The time within which the Committee of privileges was to submit its report was a matter between the House and its Committee and the party whose conduct was the subject matter of investigation could have no say in the matter
The effect in law of the order of the Speaker to expunge a portion of the speech of a member might be as if that portion had not been spoken and a report of the whole speech despite the speaker s order might be regarded as a perverted and unfaithful report and Prima facie constitute a breach of the privilege of the Assembly
Whether there had in fact been a breach of the privilege of the Assembly was however a matter for the Assembly alone to judge
Per Subba Rao J The second part of article 1943 was clearly a transitory provision and had no higher sanctity than that of the first
While a law when made by the State Legislature under the first part would by virtue of article 132 be void to the extent it contravened the provisions of 191a unless saved by article 192 there could be no reason why the powers privileges and immunities conferred under the second part should be free from the impact of the fundamental rights
As there was no inherent inconsistency between articles 191a and the second part of article 1943 full effect must be given to them both on the principle of harmonious construction
The 809 wide powers and privileges enjoyed by the Legislature and its members should therefore be so exercised as not to impair the fundamental rights of the citizen particularly of one who was not a member of the Legislature
In case of a conflict article 191a must prevail over article 1943 and not vice versa and the privilege must yield to the extent it affected the fundamental right
Gunupati Keshavarm Reddy vs Nafisul Hasan AIR 1954 SC 636 applied
At the commencement of the Constitution the House of Commons had no privilege to prevent the publication of a correct and faithful report of its proceedings save those in respect of secret sessions held under exceptional circumstances and had only a limited privilege to prevent mala fide publications of garbled unfaithful and expunged reports of the proceedings
In the instant case neither the notices nor the documents enclosed therewith disclosed any mala fides on the part of the petitioner or that he had knowledge that any portion of the speech had been expunged by the Speaker
Consequently even supposing article 1943 prevailed over article 191a the petitioner was entitled to succeed
Wasan vs Walter  relied on