IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.729 of 2009 JAI NARAIN PRASAD NISHAD son of Late Kokil Prasad Nishad, resident of Ward no. 1, Haqthsarganj, P.O. Hajipur, PS Hajipur Town, District Vaishali; at present residing at 19, Feroz Sah Road, New Delhi…appellant Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Parliamentary Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha, 29 Parliament House, New Delhi 3. The Secretary General, Rajya Sabha, 29 Parliament House, New Delhi 4. The Election Commission of India through the Chief Election Commissioner, Nirwachan Bhawan, New Delhi 5. Smt. Sushma Swaraj, W/o Sri Swaraj Kaushal, M.P (Rajya Sabha) and Deputy Leader, BJP Parliamentary Group (Rajya Sabha), 29 Parliament House, New Delhi 6. Sri Rajiv Pratap Rudy son of Sri V. N. Singh, resident of Sheonandan Bhawan , Boring Road, Patna at present Member of Rajya Sabha, New Delhi……………….respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumr Tiwary, Advocate Mr.Ratna Deep Prasad, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Sudhir Singh, ASG Mr. P.K. Ranjan, CGC ----------- 3 21-08-2009 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary, advocate, for the appellant and Mr. K.P. Ranjan, CGC, for the respondents. The present appellant was elected to Rajya Sabha as a member from Bhartiya Janta Party. Subsequently, however, he resigned from such party. Thereafter on the basis of information received from the party, the Chairman, Rajya Sabha held that the present 2 appellant had ceased to be a member of Rajya Sabha. Such order was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition, that is, CWJC no. 5914/2008. The learned Single Judge on elaborate consideration of various contentions did not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by counsel for the writ petitioner and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. In this appeal the main contention which has been raised by the counsel to the effect that the learned Single Judge has not taken into account the effect of Rule 3 (4) of the “ the Members of Rajya Sabha (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1985” to the following effect. “(4) Whenever any change takes place in the information furnished by the leader of a legislature party under sub-rule (1) or by a member under sub-rule (2), he shall, as soon as may be thereafter and in any case within thirty days from the date on which such change has taken place or within such further period as the Chairman may for sufficient cause allow, furnish in writing information to the Chairman with respect to such change”. On the basis of above, the contention is to the effect that the necessary information was not furnished 3 within thirty days as contemplated in the sub-rule. However, the said sub-rule also contemplates that placing of such information can be within such further period as the Chairman may for sufficient cause allow. Whether such time was extended or not is a matter of in house procedure and the courts are not expected to go into that aspect. Moreover, we find that the present appellant has been recently elected as a member of Lok Sabha representing Janta Dal (United) party. If the appellant wants restoration of his membership of Rajya Sabha he has to get re-entry into the Bhartiya Janta Party. In this changed scenario counsel for the appellant also is not willing to press this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. BKS/- (P. K. Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)