K. Lakshiminarayanan vs Union Of India

Consequently,   connected   miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 2.5 Against   the   aforesaid   Division   Bench   judgment   of Madras High Court dated 22.03.2018, only two appeals have   been   filed,   one   by   K.   Lakshminarayanan   and other by S. Dhanalakshmi challenging the judgment of Division   Bench   by   which   Writ   Petition   No.   16275   of 2017 has been dismissed and another appeal has been filed against the judgment of Division Bench in Writ Petition   No.   18788   of   2017   by   which   writ   petition was   dismissed.     In   so   far   as   judgment   of   Division 7 Bench in Writ Petitions Nos. 29591, 29592 and 29593 of   2017   filed   by   three   nominated   MLAs,   by   which their   writ   petitions   were   allowed   quashing   the decision of the Speaker dated 23.11.2017, no appeals have been filed.

2.4 On   13.11.2017,   the   Secretary   of   Puducherry Legislative   Assembly   communicated   the   decision   of the   Speaker   of   the   Legislative   Assembly   that   the nominated members could not be recognised as members of   the   Assembly,   having   been   appointed   in contravention of the Constitution and the Act, 1963. The communication dated 13.11.2017 was challenged by three   nominated   members   by   filing   three   separate writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 29591, 29592 and   29593   of   2017.     All   the   writ   petitions,   i.e. Writ   Petition   No.   16275   of   2017,   Writ   Petition   No. 18788   of   2017   and   Writ   Petitions   No.   29591,   29592 and 29593 of 2017 were heard and decided by Division Bench   of   Madras   High   Court   vide   its   judgment   dated 22.03.2018.     The   Writ   Petition   Nos.   16275   of   2017 and 18788 of 2017 challenging the notification dated 6 23.06.2017   has   been   dismissed,   whereas   the   Writ Petition   Nos.   29591,   29592   and   29593   have   been allowed.  Two separate but concurring judgments have been   delivered   by   Division   Bench   of   Madras   High Court.   Operative portion of the judgment delivered by   Justice   M.   Sundar,   with   which   judgment,   Chief Justice   expressed   absolute   agreement,   was   to   the following effect:­ “W.P. No. 16275 of 2017 filed by the Whip and W.P.   No.   18788   of   2017   filed   by   PIL petitioner   are   dismissed.     Writ   petitions, being W.P. Nos. 29591 to 29593 of 2017 filed by   nominated   MLAs   are   allowed.     Considering the nature of the matter and in the light of the   trajectory   this   litigation   has   taken, there   shall   be   no   order   as   to   costs.

65. The   above   debates   in   the   Constituent   Assembly   clearly indicate that Constitutional conventions were very much in the contemplation during the debates in the Constituent Assembly. Conventions were expected to grow from time to time and the President and Governors in their respective spheres were to be guided by those conventions.

I have nothing further to add.”

88. We do not find any established practice or convention to the   fact   that   names   for   nominations   to   members   of   the Legislative   Assembly   has   to   emanate   from   Chief   Minister   and can be made by the Central Government only after concurrence by Chief Minister. Both the issues are answered accordingly. Issue No. 6

(3) The   Legislative   Assembly   of the   Union   territory shall  have   power   to  act  notwithstanding  any  vacancy in the membership thereof, and any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory shall be valid   notwithstanding   that   it   is   discovered subsequently that some person who was not entitled so to   do,   sat   or   voted   or   otherwise   took   part   in   the proceedings.

(4) The   quorum   to   constitute   a   meeting   of   the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory shall be 82 one­third   of   the   total   number   of   members   of   the Assembly.

(5) If   at   any   time   during   a   meeting   of   the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory there is no  quorum,  it shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Speaker,  or person acting as such, either to adjourn the Assembly or to suspend the meeting until there is a quorum.

95. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussions,   we   uphold   the impugned   judgment   of   the   Madras   High   Court   for   the   above reasons   except   directions   in   paragraph   5   which   are   hereby deleted. In the result, the appeals are dismissed subject to the   deletion   of   recommendations   made   in   paragraph   5   of   the 84 judgment. Parties shall bear their own costs.