Kh. Nobin Singh, J.:— Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner while Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
2. The instant writ petition is taken up for consideration today on mentioning being allowed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in view of the urgency involved in the matter. The validity and correctness of the Notice dated 17-06-2020 and the Cause List dated 18-06-2020 (wrongly typed as 17-06-2020) are under challenge in this writ petition.
3. It has been submitted by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate that the manner in which the Notice dated 17.06.2020 has been issued, is unfair, unreasonable and illegal for the reason that on 06.06.2020, an order was issued by the Speaker Tribunal informing that the petitions for disqualification would be listed on 17.06.2020 but on 16.06.2020, a notice was issued informing that the said petitions would be taken up on 22.06.2020 for further proceedings on the ground that the Hon'ble Speaker was indisposed/unwell. It has further been submitted by him that in the late night of 17.06.2020, ie., yesterday, a message was received by some of the counsels through their WhatsApp that the said petitions were rescheduled on 18.06.2020, although copies thereof were not officially received by them as has been done in the past. Even the reasons for which the petitions were re-scheduled on 18.06.2020, were not disclosed in the said notice. In view of the above submissions, it has been prayed that the Notice dated 17.06.2020 and the Cause List dated 18.06.2020 be quashed and set aside.
4. In support of his submissions, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that the Hon'ble Speaker may pass any order on the basis of his wisdom either in favour of the petitioners or in favour of the respondents therein but the manner in which matters were being proceeded by the Speaker, is unfair and unreasonable. Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate submits that he is not the standing counsel for the Manipur Legislative Assembly but he has been instructed to appear in the matter after a copy of this petition being served upon the standing Counsel for the Manipur Legislative Assembly. It was 12:55 p.m. and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Speaker was asked to seek instruction over the phone to which he submitted based on instruction received over the phone that the matters were being taken up today at 1:00 p.m. and although the counsels appearing for the parties were not present, one Advocate was present for one of the petitioners. It has further been submitted by him that after examining the relevant documents available on record, a judgment/order was reserved by the Hon'ble Speaker which would be pronounced today itself.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it has been submitted by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate as well as Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 respectively that in order to avoid any further complicacy in the matter, the Hon'ble Speaker's Tribunal be directed to keep the order/judgment reserved by him today, in abeyance till tomorrow.
6. Their submissions that the manner in which the proceedings have been taken up by the Speaker today without prior notice being given to them and without they being heard, have some merit and require consideration by this Court and moreover, it is well settled that any order passed by a Court or a Tribunal without hearing the parties or their counsels will be rendered bad in law being violative of the principles of Natural Justice and provisions of the Article 14 of the Constitution. In fact, this Court is not concerned with the election of the Rajya Sabha nor is it concerned with the Political development in the State. All that this Court is concerned, is the disposal of the petitions in accordance with law and in particular, the manner in which the petitions are disposed of by the Hon'ble Speaker's Tribunal. It may be noted that on 15-06-2020 when the writ petitions were listed before this Court, it was submitted by Shri Tarunkumar, Advocate appearing for the Speaker that no time period could be indicated by the Speaker, as it would take some time for disposal of the petitions for the reason that evidence would be required to be adduced by the parties. But all of a sudden, the fact that the petitions were rescheduled on 18-06-2020 in the manner as stated above and without disclosing any reason thereof, appears to be prima facie unfair and unreasonable. [6] In view of the above, let notice be issued to the respondents returnable on 19-06-2020 ie., tomorrow and since notices have been accepted by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, no formal notice is called for.
7. By way of interim measure and in order to avoid further complicacy in the disposal of the petitions pending before the Hon'ble Speaker, it is directed that the judgment/order which is reserved and to be pronounced today by the Hon'ble Speaker, shall be kept in abeyance till tomorrow. It is made clear that the order/judgment reserved today by the Hon'ble Speaker, shall not be pronounced by him till tomorrow.
8. Copies of this order shall be sent to the counsels appearing for the parties and also to the Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly through WhatsApp/e-mail. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, leaned counsel appearing for the Speaker and the Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly is requested to inform the Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly for compliance of this order.