Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PETITIONER
Versus,
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
S.NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
INDEX
PARTICULARS
Office Report On Limitation
Listing Performa
Synopsis and List of dates
Impugned Judgment dated 21.04.2016
passed by the Honble Uttarakhand High
Court at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.
795/2016 (Copy of the impugned judgment
has not become available. The letter
written by the Assistant Solicitor General,
Uttarakhand informing the outcome of the
writ petition is being placed with prayer for
leave to file the copy of the impugned
judgment immediately on its becoming
available.)
Special Leave Petition with Affidavit
APPENDIX
i. Article 356 of the Constitution of India
ii. Article 212 of the Constitution of India
7.
ANNEXURE- P1
Copy of notification of Proclamation dated
27.03.2016 issued by the Honble President
of India.
8. ANNEXURE- P2
Copy of the order dt. 29.03.2016 passed by
the ld. Single judge of the Honble
Uttarakhand High Court in WP No.
795(M/S)/2016.
9. ANNEXURE- P3
Copy of the order dt. 30.03.2016 passed by
the ld. Division Bench of the Honble
Uttarakhand High Court in Special Appeal
No. 64/2016.
10. I.A. ____ / 2016
Application for permission to file Special
Leave to Appeal without certified as well as
plain copy of the impugned judgment dated
21.04.2016
11. I.A. ____ / 2016
An Application for permission to file the
Lengthy Synopsis and List of Dates.
12. I.A. ____ / 2016
An Application for exemption from filing
certified copy of the impugned judgement
dated 21.04.2016
PAGES
-AA1 - A2
B-
its
impugned
judgment
dated
21.04.2016
basis of the
telephonic
conversation and
the
permissible
limits
of
judicial
review
of
Presidential
Assembly.
The
INC
formed
its
government with the help and support of:i) one (1) MLA from Uttrakhand Kranti Dal,
ii) three (3) independent MLAs, and
iii) three (3) MLAs from Bahujan Samaj Party
(BSP).
In the said elections, the main opposition party
namely the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) got 31
seats.
Thereafter, due to vacancies that arose, bye -
Dehradun.
Sh.
Ajay
Bhatt,
Leader
of
his
Secretariat
to
receive
the
1.00 p.m.)
18.03.2016
(at
2.25 p.m.)
for
his
participating
in
the
to
the
Honble
Governor,
was
Immediately
upon
introduction
of
the
7.30 p.m.)
11.30 p.m.)
with
the
above-mentioned
copies
of
two
more
resolutions
In this
the
Honble
Governor
to
forward
the
By
another
communication
dt.
19.03.16,
20.03.2016
21.03.2016
and
Deputy
Speaker
are
being
examined.
23.03.2016
These
notices
were
issued
on
The
closed
addressed
cover
to
the
had
Honble
Umesh
Sharma)
was
not
clearly
monetary
and
other
allurements
being
The
Honble
Governor
addressed
another
The
Budget
Session
had
started
on
iii.
representation
was
forwarded
to
the
v.
in
the
prevailing
vii.
ix.
writing
of
this
communication
on
Speaker
under
his
signature,
alongwith
the
video
recording
of
the
of the Honble
on
21.04.16,
on
behalf
of
The
issuance
of
notification
under
of
Uttarakhand
had
also
issued
28.03.2016
and
accordingly taking
for
authorization
by
the
Honble
President.
It becomes clear that since the Honble
Speaker had also understood that any claim for
passing of the Appropriation Bill, when it had
failed would be void and a nullity, the said
Appropriation Bill had not been forwarded to the
Honble Governor before the issuance of the
notification under Article 356 of the Constitution of
India. An Appropriation Bill, if it is legally and
validly passed, cannot be kept back and is
required to be forwarded immediately to the
Honble Governor. In the present case, it is only
after the proclamation under Article 356 was
as
having
stood
established
by
of
Proclamation
appropriate
dated
Writ
27.3.2016
quashing
issued
the
under
for
direction
for
restoring
the
the
third
Uttarakhand
Legislative
Assembly.
Along with the aforesaid writ petition, the
Respondent No.1 also made an application for
was
mentioned
by
the
Counsel
of
29th
March
2016
itself,
the
Hon'ble
alia,
that
the
Uttarakhand
Legislative
interdicting
with
the
Presidential
30.03.2016
30.03.2016
before
These
two
Appeals
the
Honble
the
were
Chief
mentioned
Justice
of
Court
at
considerable
length,
on
Bill
becoming
law,
the
In complete
And
07.04.2016
Honble
High
Court)
on
06.04.2016
and
Honble
High Court
from 09.04.16
till
Proclamation
then
the
Honble
that
there
would
not
be
any
21.04.2016
statement
which
had
been
made
on
only
till
the
resumption
of
Court
proceedings on 18.04.16.
On
21.04.2016,
vide
its
impugned
when
the
impugned
Presidential
Honble
High
Courts.
The
impugned
the
legality
and
validity
of
the
the
telephonic
conversation
and
POSITION OF PARTIES
In the Honble
High Court
In this Honble
Court
BETWEEN:
Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block
New Delhi 110001
Respondent No. 1
Petitioner
Versus,
1.
2.
To
Contesting
Respondent
State of Uttarakhand
Through Chief Secretary
Secretariat, 4 Subhash Road
Dehradun 248001
Uttarakhand
Respondent No. 2
Proforma
Respondent
1.2
1.3
the
impugned
judgment.
The
petitioner
2.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.6
3.
4.
GROUNDS:
5.1
5.2
5.3
Governor
and
also
otherwise.
It
is
most
5.7
5.8
of
single
incident,
which
warrant
High
Court
under
its
Extraordinary
Writ
Bill
before
the
passing
of
the
said
The
inasmuch
as
the
Honble
Speaker
on
The State
no
legitimacy
or
entitlement
of
any
kind
It had
invocation
of
Article
356,
in
the
facts
and
provision
of
Article
212
had
no
applicability
was taken up, and that Division of Vote had not been
carried out.
5.28 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
neither
was
there
any
Division
of
Vote
on
the
judgment
are
not
only
erroneous
but
are
also
unsustainable.
5.33 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate the
settled principles of law laid down by this Honble Court
with regard to illegal acts of a Speaker of an Assembly and
no immunity whatsoever available under Article 212 of the
procedural
requirement,
however,
an
absolute
the
impugned
judgment.
The
petitioner
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.
MAIN PRAYER:
In the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that
your lordships may graciously be pleased to:
(i)
(ii)
8.
FILED BY
(Anil Katiyar)
Advocate for the Petitioner
22.04.2016
PETITIONER
Versus,