Case: SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM BIREN SINGH Vs. THE HON?BLE SPEAKER, MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY &amp; ORS. ETC.

High Court however affirmed the order passed by the Speaker and dismissed said writ petitions. The point in issue was considered by the High Court as under; [43] The Speaker heard all the Disqualification Cases jointly on 18.06.2020 and after taking into consideration all the pleadings, newspaper reports, the photographs and DVDs in connection with the Disqualification Cases, passed the impugned order disqualifying the writ petitioner for being a member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly under Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. While passing the said impugned order dated 18.06.2020, the Speaker had relied on the news reports published by many printed and electronic medias showing the writ petitioner participating in the reception ceremony organised by the BJP and being facilitated by the BJP leaders. Since the writ petitioner failed to deny the existence and authenticity of the said news reports, the Speaker was satisfied that an inference can be made that the writ petitioner had voluntarily given up the membership of INC and accordingly the Speaker disqualified the writ petitioner for being a member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly in terms of Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India. [44] On examining the photographs/videos and newspaper reports filed in connection with the Disqualification Cases, the existence of which was never denied by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered view that there were enough materials before the Speaker to draw an inference that the writ petitioner had voluntarily given up his membership of the Indian National Congress (INC). Further, in the absence of any specific denial by the writ petitioner to the allegations made against him in the disqualification cases especially the existence of the newspapers and the authenticity of the reports made therein, we do not find any infirmity which should vitiate the order passed by the Speaker disqualifying the writ petitioner and we find no ground or justification for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Speaker. [45] On examination of the records of the Disqualification cases which were placed before us, we found that the Disqualification Cases were filed on 07.12.2017, 17.02.2018 & 26.11.2018 and notice was issued on 10.07.2019. Soon after receiving notice, the present writ petitioner entered appearance through his counsel. Instead of filing written statement, the writ petitioner filed miscellaneous applications raising preliminary objections of the maintainability of the said disqualification cases. Only after dismissal of the preliminary objections raised by the writ petitioner in his applications, the writ petitioner filed his written statement in the Disqualification Case on 12.06.2020. By an order dated 06.06.2020 passed by the Speaker all the disqualification cases were fixed on 17.06.2020 for further proceedings, however, on the direction of the Speaker, the date of hearing of the Disqualification Cases was rescheduled to 22.06.2020 on account of the illness of the Speaker. However, the hearing of the disqualification cases were again preponed from 22.06.2020 to 18.06.2020 at 1:00 p.m. by issuing a notice dated 17.06.2020 in view of the improvement of the health condition of the Speaker and also in view of the urgent need for early disposal of the disqualification cases as directed by the Honble Supreme Court in its judgment and order dated 21.01.2020 passed in the case of KeishamMeghachandra Singh Vs. Hon ble Speaker ? Manipur Legislative Assembly reported in AIR Online 2020 SC 54, wherein the Speaker has been directed to decide the disqualification petitions pending before him within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date on which the judgment of the Apex Court was intimated to him. [46] We are also in agreement with the submissions advanced by the counsel for the respondents that the writ petitioner and his counsel have knowledge in time about the issuance of the said notice dated 17.06.2020 preponing the date of hearing of the disqualification cases for the simple reason that the said notice dated 17.06.2020 had been challenged before this Court by filing WP(C) No. 298 of 2020 on 18.06.2020 by the counsel of the writ petitioner representing one of the MLAs against whom disqualification cases was pending. Despite having knowledge about the preponement of the hearing of the disqualification cases, the writ petitioner and his counsel choose not to appear before the Tribunal and accordingly the Speaker heard and disposed of the disqualification cases in their absence. 16. In these appeals challenging the decision of the High Court, we have heard Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate in support of the appeals and Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Advocate for the Speaker. The original applicants who had preferred Disqualification Applications, according to the report of the Registry, were duly served but have not chosen to file any appearance in these matters. 17. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through the pleadings exchanged between the parties and the facts on record. It is quite clear that the petitions were directed to be taken up for hearing on 22.06.2020 but were preponed to 18.06.2020. 18. Without going into the question whether such preponement was to the knowledge of the parties, the fact of the matter is that the record does not indicate any urgency why the matters were preponed from 22.06.2020 to 18.06.2020. It is also a matter of record that none of the parties was represented before the Speaker. As submitted by the learned counsel who had appeared on behalf of the Speaker, which submission was noted by the High Court in its order dated 18.06.2020, the matter required leading of evidence. 19. The questions - whether mere reporting in the newspapers could be taken as sufficient proof of voluntarily giving up of the membership of a political party and, whether the matters require leading of evidence, had to be gone into by the Speaker. In our view, the essential features of the matter demanded leading of evidence as well as giving adequate opportunity to the parties to present their viewpoint.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]17. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through the pleadings exchanged between the parties and the facts on record. It is quite clear that the petitions were directed to be taken up for hearing on 22.06.2020 but were preponed to 18.06.2020.18. Without going into the question whether such preponement was to the knowledge of the parties, the fact of the matter is that the record does not indicate any urgency why the matters were preponed from 22.06.2020 to 18.06.2020. It is also a matter of record that none of the parties was represented before the Speaker. As submitted by the learned counsel who had appeared on behalf of the Speaker, which submission was noted by the High Court in its order dated 18.06.2020, the matter required leading of evidence.19. The questions - whether mere reporting in the newspapers could be taken as sufficient proof of voluntarily giving up of the membership of a political party and, whether the matters require leading of evidence, had to be gone into by the Speaker. In our view, the essential features of the matter demanded leading of evidence as well as giving adequate opportunity to the parties to present their viewpoint.