IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAH AT BILASPUR [WRIT JumsmCTlom PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION NO. 2&0 Z OF 2001 IN xHE MATTER 0F: .nAnH Chaubey, Aged 45 years, ” S/o Late Sri DP. Chaubey, Editor, Rastriya Hindi Mail, Daga Building, Shiv Das Daga Road, Civii Lines, Raipur, (CG) VERSUS 1. Sri DharamjeetSingh, Member of Legislative Assembly and Chairperson (Sabhapaii) _ inquiry Committee of Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha on irregularities in purchase of Furniture for S.C., S.T,, O.B.C. And Minority Welfare Department ,Vidhanaabha, Ralpur (CG) State of Chhattishgarh, Through: Secretary, S.C., S.T., O.B.C. and Minority Welfare Department, Secretariat, Raipur (CG) Respondents To, The Chief Justice and His Companion Justices of the Hon’ble High Court of attisgarh at Bilaspur PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ”'2 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . h xg—Hcaz .x ‘Mwwwa Wm. ;wq-.m‘_w_.‘. n4gu‘_..;é‘miuw.._.y.v “;Ar g A: =V n., Writ Petition N¢ g‘ '26— 1 1—200 1 V Petitioner by Siiri Mukesh Sl State by D1‘.N.K. Shuida, D61 Heard. The petitioner has fEled thi$ ‘ Litigation chalhnging tlm legQity Jpetition styled as Public Inteiest validity aim propn'ety of the. raport da’md 0308—2001 submitte (i by the Committee constituted by Vldhcm Sabha of Chhattlsgarl 1 for enquiling into the alleged n‘regularxty 1n the matmr of S111)ply of furniture to the Tribal A Welfaro Department State of Chi 1attisgarh. The ‘ Committee waS constituted by three persons whereas the petitioner has joiloea Shm Dharmjset Singh, Mambcr of L egislative Assembly and Chair Person of the Comnnttce alonc Learned Deputy Advocate G1 Chhatti§garh pointed out that filed by individuals challenging 1922/2001 and 1692/2001 were, of the same report for which‘the r the legahty, vahd1t§ and propuets rstmtrpetmorr styledeas Pnbhewinaaerest ungaaeauhasmbeen‘éued» ).2404;200 1 tarma, Advocate. 1uty Advocate General .V 1 a. eneijal appearing for the State of '- y _ Writ Petitions No.71524f2001, ‘,.k... n ~ wW%§¢wk2ww&ag¢w Emma W1¥%z'km 'o‘h-Wm This Court had dealt with thd§e petitions and decided by a Common order dated 29~10—2001. Leanmd counsel for the mambers haw: not $ign6d thE mp? \‘mt and (mly Chaixjlfé}; haS signad not joined other memberS arid the report. The petitioner haa; submits that the petitioner being Learned comma Editor of ‘Rashtriva Hindi Majl’ 1 1as publiehed Van'ous amides in No notice for demand ofjustice this regard in the said news pap . 11ml Sabha to consider all these has been made. It is for the Vi things. While deciding the aforesai Wn't Petitions vide order dated bsewed as under: 29~ 10-2001, this Court in Para 5 “S0 far as the vaiidity of th concerned. Zeamed Advocate G Committee has been validly co House. He aZso placed Teficmce or proper pmies. betitioner i submit‘s that ail the 1 998m SCC 626 where the Apex Wason (I869) 4 QB 5731 38 LJQB.’ “Clause (1)(2) of Articie IO Constéiutidn of the Committee is neral has contended that the stituted by the Speaker of the the decision ofthe Supreme Court - Vs ~ State (CBI/ SPE), Court considering the case of EXP 302 has held as under: are interlinked. white clause{1) ofspeech in Pariiament. clause(2) WeW e J ‘ XE—HC-ZZ the members from liability in reap given by him in Parliament or in necessary because for a regulatory and free debate is of the essence of speech is of the utmost imponance and fut} and free deba te is of the essenceagof speech in Parliamentaiy democracy, In Eng and this freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in. any Court or place out of Pariiamené” confers immunity in respect of speech, debate or proceedings in The said immunity has been constr Jed to preciude what was said or done in. Parliament in the course of proceedings there fonn being examined outside the Parliament for the purpose of supporting a cause of action even thought the cause of action itself arose out of something done ouiside the Parliam em, ” Pariiameni being quesiioned in any This Court in the order dated 29-10-2001 1'11 Para 9 has held that “in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the faci that the matier is we are of the opinion ihat the - powers, ‘giivi'leges etc, conferred,‘ a r proper perspective.” \ mam \ : upon the legislature and the members of the Legislative Assemlily, has to be consirued in thei sifiil under considerazion of the governmeni and the Vidhan Sabhc safeguards and protects the said freedom conferring immunity on eci of anything said or any vote any Commiitee thereof This is body like Parh‘ameni thefreedom I Court or place oui of Parliament ;J« ; summing, mu secum‘ty if deposited be iiefunded to the petitioner. The Sdl- Fakhruddin r Judge Sdl- ML . M57 J XE-HC-ZZ ‘3/ 1/ _ W m ¢ m 200 ma Wm WWW 1E€Q§W WW1 mmmm ' $Wané¥1 WW -HF Undm‘ the facts and circumstancss of the case and as The questions involved in the pEtition are within the domain of the. / $i J-r‘ Vidhan Sabha a11d also 1‘11 View of the fact that the petiiionsv‘ involving same cause of action have already been decided by this Court Vide. order dated 29- lO-2C01, no case for igt‘erference is made out. The petition fails and is dismissed.