Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1944/2007 9/ 9 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1944 of 2007
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16631 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M. DOSHIT
&
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D. DAVE
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to civil judge ?
=========================================================
JAGDISHBHAI
THAKORE & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
CHANDRIKABEN
CHUDASMA & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARIN P RAVAL for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR KAMAL
TRIVEDI, Advocate General with Ms. Sangeeta Vishen for Respondent(s)
: 3,
MS MINI NAIR AGP for Respondent no. 4
MS SK VISHEN for Respondent(s) :
5,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE 26th August, 2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MS.
JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)
Heard
the learned advocates.
This
Appeal preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from
the judgment and order dated 25th July, 2007 passed by the
learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No. 16631 of
2007.
At
the outset, we have noticed that alongwith the Appeal, the appellants
have placed certain materials on record without the express
permission of the Court. Nevertheless, we have allowed the
learned advocate Mr. Raval to rely upon such materials and Mr. Raval
has extensively read over such materials. We, however, direct the
learned advocate to remove from the paper-book the materials which
have been placed on the record without the permission of the court.
The
appellants-writ petitioners are the members of the Gujarat
State Legislative Assembly. The subject matter of the controversy is
the report purportedly made by the Public Accounts Committee of the
Legislative Assembly [hereinafter referred to as, the
Committee ] which the appellants want to be tabled before
the House. The appellants preferred above Special Civil Application
No. 16631 of 2007 for a direction to the respondent no.1 the former
Chairman of the Committee, to place the report on the table of the
House; for a direction to the Hon’ble Speaker of the Assembly
not to withhold the report from being placed on the table of the
House, or in the alternative, a direction to the Hon’ble
Speaker of the Assembly to permit the respondent no.1-the former
Chairman of the Committee to place the report on the table of the
House.
According
to the appellants, the Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules
[hereinafter referred to as, the Rules ] are
framed under Article 218 of the Constitution of India.
Rule-196 thereof contemplates constitution of Public Accounts
Committee. Such committee is to be constituted by the members of the
legislative assembly by election. The Committee is, therefore,
answerable to the Assembly. The Committee is required to consider the
appropriation accounts and the finance accounts of the State, and the
report of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India thereon. The
Committee is also empowered to consider such other accounts laid
before the House, as the Committee may think fit. In exercise of the
powers conferred upon the Committee, the Committee had submitted its
report to the Hon’ble Speaker of the House the respondent
no.3. It was the duty of the respondent no.3 to place that report on
the table of the House. However, in breach of the duties imposed upon
him, the Hon’ble Speaker did not allow placing of the said
report on the table of the House. The action of the Hon’ble
Speaker has, thus, abridged or abrogated the fundamental and
the statutory right of the appellants to receive information.
The
petition is contested by the State Government. According to the State
Government, the said report was not made by the Committee within
the powers conferred upon it. The unsigned draft report was placed
before the Hon’ble Speaker. The Hon’ble Speaker,
therefore, had to refer the report back to the Committee to prune the
report to bring it within
jurisdiction of the Committee and to place it before the
Hon’ble Speaker.
The
learned Single Judge, considering the rival contentions; the
constitutional provisions; the provisions contained in the Rules and
various judgments, did not accept the submissions made on behalf of
the appellants. By the impugned judgment and order, the
learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition. Therefore,
the present Appeal.
Learned
advocate Mr. Raval has appeared for the appellants. He has
extensively relied upon the materials on record and also additional
materials which are placed alongwith the Appeal. He has taken us
through the constitutional provisions and the Rules. He has also
relied upon the affidavit made by the respondent no.2-the Chairman of
the Public Accounts Committee on 18th July, 2007. Before
the learned Single Judge, the same was not permitted to be taken on
record. He has also submitted that the respondent no. 2 had made a
categorical statement that on the date of hearing, the report was in
the custody of the Committee. It was not possible that the original
report was placed before the Court. The finding that the report was
not signed recorded by the learned Single Judge, is therefore,
erroneous. The respondent no.2 had also stated that the report
was signed before it was placed before the Hon’ble Speaker. In
support of his submissions, Mr. Raval has relied upon the judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Special
Reference No. 1 of 1964 [AIR 1965 SC 745]; of State of
Punjab v. Satya Pal Dang & Ors. [AIR 1969 SC 903]; of
Arjun Munda v. Governor of Jharkhand & Ors. [(2005)
3 SCC 399] and of Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha &
Ors. [(2007) 3 SCC 184].
The
Appeal is contested by learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi. He
has submitted that it was an unsigned draft report which was placed
before the Hon’ble Speaker. The Hon’ble Speaker was
within his jurisdiction in referring the report back to
the Committee, and in calling upon the Committee to prune the report
to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Committee.
He has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of
Chhabildas Mehta, M.L.A & Ors. vs. The Legislative
Assembly, Gujarat State & Ors. [1970 GLR 729] and of
Dilipsinh Vakhatsinh Parmar v. Gumansinh Vaghela, Hon’ble
Speaker, Gujarat Legislative Assembly & Ors. [1998 (3)
GLR 2119]. He also has relied upon the judgment in the matter of
Raja Ram Pal [Supra], particularly paragraph 393
thereof. He has submitted that the said judgment was rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case where a citizen had
complained of breach of his fundamental right to liberty by the
action of the Legislative Assembly of the State. The observations
made in the said judgment, therefore, cannot apply to the facts of
the present case which arises from ordinary business of legislative
assembly.
He
has relied upon the Gujarat Legislative Assembly Rules, particularly
Part-XV thereof. Part-XV of the Rules (starting from rule 153 to
rule 219) make general provisions for committees i.e.,
constitution of committees; functioning of the committees; powers of
the committees, etc. Rules 196 & 197 thereof particularly deal
with Public Accounts Committee. Rule-196 provides for constitution of
the Public Accounts Committee and Rule-197 provides for the functions
of that committee. Rule-182 of the Rules empowers a Committee, with
the approval of the Speaker, to make detailed rules of procedure to
supplement the provisions contained in the rules in Part-XV. In
exercise of the said power, the Public Accounts Committee has framed
Rules of Procedure [Internal Working] of the Public Accounts
Committee. Rule-23 thereof provides for preparation of draft report
by the Secretariat. Rule 24 thereof provides that, As soon
as the draft Report has been approved by the committee it shall be
signed by the Chairman on behalf of the committee and it shall be
printed and presented to the House. Thus, a report made by
the Committee, unless it is signed by the Chairman of the Committee,
cannot be said to be a report which could be presented to the House.
As pointed out in the counter-affidavit, the purported report was not
a signed report and remained unsigned even after it was referred back
to the committee by the Hon’ble Speaker.
Rule-156
of the Rules empowers the Speaker to issue directions relating to the
detailed working of the Rules. Rule-183 of the Rules provides that a
committee shall function under the general control and supervision of
the Speaker and the Speaker is empowered to issue such directions as
may be necessary for the efficient working of the Committee or for
regulating its procedure and organization of its work.
We
agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Public
Accounts Committee has to function under the general control and
supervision of the Speaker of the Assembly. The contention that the
Public Accounts Committee is answerable to the House alone and the
Speaker has no control over it has rightly been rejected by the
learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that the learned Single
Judge has rightly refused to interfere with the impugned
action of the Hon’ble Speaker.
No
case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in
limine.
{Miss
R.M Doshit, J.}
{Sharad
D. Dave, J.}
Prakash*
Top