4 3 " I N T H E H E G H C O U R T O F J U D I C ‘ > U R E A T . B E L A S P U R ( C . G . ) C 4 5 / ” é R I T P E T I T I O N N o . 1 6 9 2 — / 2 0 0 1 W : N a r e n d r a K I T T i w a r i , a g e d g a b c u t I W R I T P E T I T I O N U N D E R A R T I C L E 2 2 6 l 2 2 7 O F T H E O N S T I T U T I O N O F I N D I C A . * 4 5 y e a r s , s / o S h r i R a m M u f t i T i w a r i , Z A s s i s t a n t $ i r e c t 0 r , E s p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e a n d : I n d u s t r i a s , G a v e m m e n t @ f C h h a t t i s g a r h , R a i p u r C h h a t t i s g a r h , R a i p u r A , , ( C . G . ) ‘ é Q m - . V e r s u s , . \ M . ' . < r $ - - 4 ' - - “ c ” " ' “ I $ " ‘ \ ' I . . . . . . " Q “ 1 3 $ I a “ . S ' d a w ‘ ; ' 1 . S T A T E O F C H H A T T I S G A R H , x T h r o u g h P r i n c i p a l S e c r e t a r y , D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e a n d I n d u s t r i e s , M a n t r a i a y a , D . K . B h a w a n R a i p u r r ( C G ) 2 . S E C R E T A R Y , V i d h a n S a b h a o f C h h a t t i s g a r h , R a i p u r ( C G ) ^^r::3'':r-^;;:~;'::-.' :1 s ^o o' v^ :^ m'^ ^d n & c^ 1s »T) ^ ^iy il^ •:^t: ) i fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. 1524/2001 W.P.NO.1922/2001 And W.P. No.1692/2001 ORDER Per Fakhruddin, J- This order shall dispose ofall the above-mentioned writ petitions as the question involved is common in nature. The petitioner has iBled the instant petition challenging the legality, validity and propriety ofthe report dated 2.8.2001 submitted by the committee constituted by Vidhan Sabha of Chhattisgarh for enquiring into the alleged irregularity in the matter of supply of fumiture to the Tribal Welfare Department.State of Chhattisgarh. It is submitted that the report submitted by the committee is arbitrarty and illegal. It is also the submission ofthe counsel for the petitioner that in the said report certain recommendations have been made against the writ petitioner for which there is absolutely no basis in the entire report. It is contended by the pe;titioner that the report further goes to demonstrate that the recommendation of taking appropriate stem action against the petitioner has also been contemplated m it. 2. Leamed Advocate General aad the Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State ofChhattisgarh, submitted that a committee was constituted on 29.3.2001 under the Chairman-ship ofShri Dharamjit Singh. The Committee so constituted also mcluded Shri Mahesh Tiwari and Shri Manturam Pawar besides Shri Dharamjit Singh. The abovementioned committee was constituted by Hon'ble the Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner farther submitted that the inquiry committee though summoned a large number ofpersons as witnesses which included officers and employees of the Tribal Welfare Department but the petitioner did not receive my notice or summons from the said committee. The Committee ultimately submitted its report on 2.8.2001 which was also placed on the floor ofthe State Legislature. The main reliefsought for in T -^- the petition is for the quashment ofthe impugned report being illegal^ arbitrary and void. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the Vidhan Sabha has duly constituted the committee and the report has also been given to the House.It is fiirther submitted that since the matter is yet to be discussed by the House^and at this stage no executive direction ofthe govemment as such is there warranting interference in exercise ofthe power under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution^the petition is not at all maintainable at this Stage when the matter is under consideration before the Vidhan Sabha.As such it would be just and proper that the Govemment and the Vidhan Sabha be allowed to perform theu- function m accordance with the provisions ofthe constitution and in view ofthe facts and circumstances ofthecase and also material available on record it is not a case for interference in exercise ofthejurisdiction under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 5. So far as the validity of the constitution of the committee is concemed, leamed Advocate General has contended that the committee has been validly constituted by the Speaker of the House. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of P.V.Narsimharao Vs. State (CBI/SPE) ,1998 (IV) SCC 626 where the Apex Court considering the case ofEx.P Wason (1869) 4 QB 573: 38 LJQB,302 has held as under : " Clause (1) (2) of Article 105 are interlinked, while clause (1) secures to the Members offreedom of speech in Parliament^ clause (2) safeguards and protects the said i&eedom conferring mimunity on the members fi-om liability in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or in any committee thereof. This is necessary because for a V, 4'egulatory body like parliamen^ the freedom aiid free ^, -?)- debate is of the essence of speech is of the utmost importance and fall and free debate is ofthe essence of speech in Parliamentary democracy. In England this fi-eedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament^ confers inmiunity in respect of speech^debate or proceedings in parliament being questioned in any court or place out of parliament. The said iiimiunity has been construed to preclude what was said or done in parliament in the course of proceedings therefrom being examined outside the parUament for the purpose of supporting a cause of action even though the cause of action itsetf arose out ofsomething done outside the parliament." 6. Leamed Advocate General also placed reliance on Article 194 (2) aad 212 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Article 194 (2) says that no member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof^ and no person shall be so liable in respect ofthe publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report^paper^votes or proceedings. Whereas Article 212 goes to say that the validity ofany proceedings in the Legislature ofa State shall not be called in question on the ground ofany alleged irregularity ofthe procedure. 7. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of D.Mumgesan Vs. Hon.Speaker ,Tanul Nadu Legislative Assembly reported in AIR1995 Madras page 260 AND in the matter of S. Balasubramaniabn Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in AIR 1995 Madras page no. 329. In the case of S.Balasubramania Vs. State of Tamilnadu (supra ) it has been held th^t the penalty imposed by the speaker without giving hearing to the ^i..: -4-- delinquent is in violation ofthe Proeedure under Tamilnadu Assembly rules and as such the same is Uable to be quashed. 8. Learned Advocate General on the other hand submits that these are the cases where the warraats were issued and the question of sentence/punishment being imposed without any opportunity ofhearing to the delinquent was mvolved and the deprivation of the Ufe and liberty was alleged. He further submitted that the present case does not pertain to the violation of the fandamental right enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. Leamed Advocate General fairly submits that thepetitioner if so desires may make a representation to the govemment which shaU be placed by the govemment before the Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha for being dealt with in accordance with mles and practice prevaUing in the Vidhan Sabh.^ ^ Afl ^a^<^^l'^ "^S^ :^^SS ^^^\ (^ohu^^^iy^w^ .^^oL^i^^ Y^LVy£^2\.^-\^MW^ LAA l?v ^^SsSttl^ {^\\^^^\^\/\.w^^^ 1^ ^\.<"—^\^<-1" y - ,.^v, 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the matter is still under consideration of the govemment and the Vidhan Sabha^we are of the opinion that the powers^privUeges etc. conferred upon the legislature and the members of the legislative assembly,have to be constmed in their proper perspective. 10. Consequently no case for mvoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia is made out at this stage. The petition fails and as such the same is dismissed. 11. Parties to bear their own costs as mcurred. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge J