: 1 :

BEFORE THE SPEAKER, HARYANA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AT CHANDIGARH

Five petitions filed by Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi, M.L.A.

before the Speaker in 2009 are as under:

Petition No.1 — Kuldeep Bishnoi, M.L.A. V/s Vinod Bhayana, M.L.A.

Petition No.2 — Kuldeep Bishnoi, M.L.A. V/s Narender Singh, M.L.A.

Petition No.3 — Kuldeep Bishnoi, M.L.A. V/s Satpal Sangwan, M.L.A.

Petition No.4 — Kuldeep Bishnoi, M.L.A. V/s Zile Ram Sharma, M.L.A.

Petition No.5 — Kuldeep Bishnoi, M.L.A. V/s Dharam Singh, M.L.A.

Petitions No.6 to 14 were clubbed with the

aforementioned petitions No.1 to 5, vide order dated 10th

August, 2011.

Petitions No.6 — Ashok Arora, M.L.A. V/s Satpal Sangwan, M.L.A.

Petitions No.7 — Ashok Arora, M.L.A. V/s Narender Singh, M.L.A. and Others

Petitions No.8 — Ashok Arora, M.L.A. V/s Dharam Singh, M.L.A.

Petitions No.9 — Sher Singh Barshami, M.L.A. V/s Dharam Singh, M.L.A.

Petitions No.10 — Sher Singh Barshami, M.L.A. V/s Satpal Sangwan, M.L.A.

Petitions No.11 — Sher Singh Barshami, M.L.A. V/s Narender Singh, M.L.A. and Others

Petitions No.12 — Ajay Singh Chautala, M.L.A. V/s Narender Singh, M.L.A. and Others

Petitions No.13 — Ajay Singh Chautala, M.L.A. V/s Dharam Singh, M.L.A.

Petitions No.14 — Ajay Singh Chautala, M.L.A. V/s Satpal Sangwan, M.L.A.

Petitions under the Tenth Schedule

of the Constitution of India and the

rules framed there under.

: 2 :

Present: Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Dhreej Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner in Petition Nos.1 to 5

Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arun Walia, Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Mr. Jagbir Singh Narwal and Ms. Dilraj Kaur, Advocates for the respondents.

JUDGMENT

(1) This judgment will decide petitions No.1 to 14 filed

by Members of the Haryana Legislative Assembly as by my

separate order on file all the petitions were clubbed together as

agreed by all the parties.

(2) The above petitions, filed under Article 191 read with

Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and the rules framed

thereunder, seek the disqualification of the above said

Legislators (respondents), as a Member of the Haryana State

Legislative Assembly, on the ground of their allegedly having

voluntarily given up membership of their original political party,

on whose tickets they were elected, i.e. Haryana Janhit Congress

(BL) Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘HJC(BL) Party’), and

merging their party into Indian National Congress by joining the

Indian National Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as

‘INC Party’).

(3) The respondents-Legislators have filed their separate

written statements and have denied the factum of their alleged

defection. Their contention is that HJC(BL) Party as a political

party merged with the INC Party. According to the respondents,

the decision to this effect was taken in a meeting of the Primary

Members-cum-Delegates of the HJC(BL) Party held at Karnal on

the 8th of November, 2009, where 75 out of 108 Primary

Members-cum-Delegates of the Party (including all the five

respondents) were present. It is claimed that all the primary

members of the HJC(BL) Party, who were present in the meeting

: 3 :

held at Karnal on 8th of November, 2009, unanimously decided

to merge their Party with the INC Party and thus both the above-

said parties stood merged on the 8th of November, 2009 itself. It

is also contended that in a separate meeting held on the same

day, the five members i.e. the respondents endorsed the

decision taken by the primary members of HJC(BL) Party.

Consequently, it is claimed that the HJC(BL) Party ceased to

exist on the 8th of November, 2009 itself.

(4) The petitioners in petitions No.1 to 5 filed

replications to the written statements and controverted the

factum of alleged merger of the two political parties. The

respondents filed rejoinders to counter the facts stated in the

replications. In the rejoinders filed by the respondents-MLAs,

they controverted the contentions raised by the petitioners in

their replications and reiterated their stand taken in their

respective written statements.

(5) Before adverting to the controversy in issue, it is

necessary to put on record the sequence of facts leading to the

filing of the above-said petitions for disqualification of the

respondents.

General Elections to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha were

held on 13th October, 2009. The results were declared on 22nd

October, 2009. The party-wise position, as emerged after the

General Elections, was as under:

Parties Members Indian National Congress 40 Indian National Lok Dal 31 Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) 06 Bhartiya Janta Party 04 Bahujan Samaj Party 01 Shiromani Akali Dal 01 Independents 07 Total = 90

: 4 :

(6) First Session of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, after the

aforementioned General Elections, was held on 28th October,

2009. The Hon’ble Governor of Haryana called upon Shri

Bhupinder Singh Hooda, M.L.A. to form a Government and asked

him to prove his majority on the Floor of the House. Session of

the Haryana Legislative Assembly was called for this purpose and

the Ministry headed by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda obtained

Vote of Confidence in the House on 28th October, 2009. 47

Legislators, out of effective strength of the House of 89, voted in

favour of Vote of Confidence. All the six MLAs elected on the

symbol of HJC(BL) Party abstained from voting.

(7) On the 9th of November, 2009, four Members of the

HJC(BL) Party, namely Sarvshri Satpal Sangwan, Vinod Bhayana,

Narender Singh and Zile Ram Sharma, addressed a

communication to the then Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha

stating that there has been a merger of HJC(BL) Party with the

INC Party. The above letter is reproduced here under:

“To The Hon’ble Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha, Chandigarh. Subject: Merger of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party

with the Indian National Congress Party. Sir, A decision has been taken to merge Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party with the Indian National Congress Party in terms of the provisions contained in para 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The decision in this regard is attached herewith. All the requirements of merger in terms of the above said constitutional provisions have been fulfilled while taking the decision. Thus, you are requested to accept the merger of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party with Indian National Congress and recognize the applicant legislators as members of the Indian National Congress Party in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. Yours sincerely, Sd/- 9.11.09 Sd/- 9.11.2009 (SATPAL) (VINOD BHAYANA) M.L.A., Dadri-56 M.L.A., Hansi-50 Sd/- 9.11.2009 Sd/- 9.11.2009 (NARENDER SINGH) (ZILE RAM CHOCHRA) M.L.A., Narnaul-70 M.L.A., Assandh-23”

: 5 :

(8) A Resolution to the above effect was also passed in a

Meeting of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Legislature Party held

at Chandigarh on 09.11.2009.

Through a letter dated 9th of November, 2009, Shri

Randeep Singh Surjewala, Parliamentary Affairs Minister and

Govt. Chief Whip, brought to the notice of the then Speaker that

Ch. Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Chief Minister has asked him to

communicate to the Speaker that he has accepted the merger of

HJC(BL) Party into INC Party. The letter is reproduced here

under:

“Attention : Hon’ble Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha, Chandigarh. Sir, Leader of Congress Legislature Party and Chief Minister, Ch. Bhupinder Singh Hooda has asked me to communicate that he has accepted the merger of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party into Indian National Congress Party.

Yours sincerely,

Sd/- 9.11.2009 (Randeep Singh Surjewala)

Parliamentary Affairs Minister and Govt. Chief Whip.”

(9) Another letter dated 09.11.2009 was addressed to

the then Speaker by Shri Phool Chand Mullana, President,

Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee informing him that he has

accepted the merger of HJC(BL) Party into INC Party. It is

reproduced here under:

“Attention : Hon’ble Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha, Chandigarh. Sir, I, Phool Chand Mullana, President, Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee, hereby accept the merger of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party into Indian National Congress Party.

Yours sincerely, Sd/- 9.11.09

(Phool Chand Mullana) President,

Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee”

: 6 :

(10) On the same day, i.e. 9th of November, 2009, Shri

Dharam Singh, M.L.A., Samalkha-respondent informed the then

Speaker regarding merger of HJC(BL) Party with the INC Party.

The letter dated 09.11.2009 is reproduced here under:

“To The Hon’ble Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha, Chandigarh. Subject: Merger of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party

with the Indian National Congress Party. Sir, I along with Shri Satpal, M.L.A., Dadri Assembly; Shri Vinod Bhayana, M.L.A., Hansi Assembly; Shri Narender Singh, M.L.A., Narnaul and Shri Zile Ram Chochra, M.L.A., Assandh Assembly had decided to merge Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party with the Indian National Congress Party in terms of the provisions contained in para 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

All five of us had decided to meet at Chandigarh today to formally convey the same in writing to your good self. However, I could not reach in time owing to unavoidable circumstances.

I understand that all the other four M.L.As named above have conveyed the decision of merger in writing to your good self by appearing in person. Though, I am a part and parcel of this merger but I could not sign decision and appear in person before your good self as explained above. I, therefore, through the instant writing, convey to your good self my decision for acceptance of merger of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party with Indian National Congress. This may be treated as a part and parcel of the decision already conveyed to your good self separately by the above named four legislators today itself.

You are, therefore, requested to accept the merger of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party with Indian National Congress Party and consequently, henceforth I along with the other four legislators may be recognized as members of the Indian National Congress Party in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha.

Yours sincerely, Nov. 9, 2009.

Sd/- (DHARAM SINGH)

M.L.A., 27-Samalkha.”

(11) On the 10th of November, 2009, a letter was

addressed by Shri Phool Chand Mullana, President, Haryana

Pradesh Congress Committee intimating the then Speaker that

: 7 :

Indian National Congress Party has accepted Shri Dharam Singh,

M.L.A., Samalkha as its member. Similarly, Shri Randeep Singh

Surjewala, Parliamentary Affairs Minister and Govt. Chief Whip

vide letter dated 10.11.2009 conveyed to the then Speaker that

the Chief Minister has asked him to communicate to the Speaker

that he has accepted Shri Dharam Singh as member of the INC

Party by way of merger of HJC(BL) Party into INC Party.

(12) The then Speaker vide order dated 09.11.2009

accepted the merger of HJC(BL) Party with INC Party with

immediate effect in terms of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution

of India. The above said order is attached herewith as

Annexure-I. Another order of Speaker dated 10th November,

2009, whereby the factum of membership of Shri Dharam Singh,

aforesaid M.L.A., as a member of the Indian National Congress

Legislature Party was accepted, is attached herewith as

Annexure-II.

(13) The respondents though not served but put in 5

separate applications dated 04.03.2010 requesting 8 weeks time

to enable them to file their respective written statements. Six

weeks time was given on their request. Later requests were

made for more time as the respondents wanted to collect

relevant records for their defence. Last opportunity was granted

to the respondents to file their comments/reply within 4 weeks

vide order dated 16.07.2010.

(14) Though last opportunity was given to the

respondents to file their response but the petitioner, Shri

Kuldeep Bishnoi, in the meantime, approached the Hon’ble High

Court through Civil Writ Petition No.14194 of 2010 wherein he

leveled allegations of mala fide against the Speaker and also

against the respondents/MLAs. He prayed therein that High

Court itself should declare these MLAs disqualified for the current

: 8 :

term of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha or a time-frame be fixed

directing the speaker to decide the cases within that time.

Written statements were filed on behalf of the then

Speaker and also by 5 MLAs in the aforesaid writ petition. The

case was argued at length in the High Court. It is significant

that during the arguments in the writ petition, Shri Satya

Pal Jain, Senior Advocate, counsel for the writ petitioner

withdrew allegations of mala fide against the Speaker.

(15) On the 20th of December, 2010, Hon’ble Single Judge

of the High Court pronounced the judgment, whereby the

Speaker was directed to finally decide the petitions filed by the

writ petitioner within a period of 4 months from the receipt of

certified copy of the judgment.

(16) In sequence of the judgment of the Hon’ble High

Court dated 20.12.2010, the petitions were ordered to be heard

on 20th January, 2011.

(17) Several miscellaneous applications were filed by

respondents raising objections regarding the maintainability of

the petitions. After hearing at length both the parties, all these

applications were dismissed by speaking orders.

(18) In the meantime, the then Speaker, Mr. H.S.

Chattha, was included in the Council of Ministers and the Deputy

Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, Shri Akram Khan, took

over the duties of the Speaker on 28.01.2011.

(19) Against the Judgment dated 20.12.2010 passed by

the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court in CWP

No.14194 of 2010, my Predecessor in office filed LPA No.366 of

2011 in the Hon’ble High Court. Three other LPAs were also filed

against the same by the 5 MLAs being LPA No.367 of 2011, LPA

No.368 of 2011 and LPA No.369 of 2011. The LPAs came up for

: 9 :

preliminary hearing before a Division Bench consisting of the

then Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Mr. Justice

Augustine George Masih on 01.03.2011.

Hon’ble Division Bench issued notice of motion in the

LPAs and ordered that the Speaker will decide the matter

expeditiously and the operation of the Judgment of learned

Single Judge dated 20.12.2010 was stayed.

(20) The LPAs were heard from 18th July to 20th

July, 2011 and the judgments were reserved on 20th of

July, 2011 itself.

(21) On 18.11.2011, C.M. No.5575 of 2011 in LPA No.366

of 2011 was taken up Hon’ble High Court, where the following

orders were passed:

“ CM No.5575 of 2011 in LPA No.366 of 2011

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx C.M. is allowed. Status report is taken on record. Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, learned counsel for the appellants, also filed a status report by way of affidavit of Shri Kuldeep Sharma, Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha, Chandigarh, in the Court today, which is also taken on record and copy has been furnished to the counsel opposite. The main appeal and connected cases be put up on 2.12.2011.

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

(GURDEV SINGH)

JUDGE November 18, 2011”

(22) In compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court,

the status report regarding all the cases by way of affidavit was

filed on behalf of the Speaker by Additional Secretary, Haryana

Vidhan Sabha. However, the Hon’ble High Court ordered that it

should be filed under the signature of the Speaker. It was duly

: 10 :

filed on 17.11.2011 under my signature, in compliance of the

order of the Hon’ble High Court.

(23) The Hon’ble High Court took up the LPAs on

02.12.2011 and adjourned the same to 07.12.2011 with the

direction that the entire record before the Speaker may be

produced before the High Court. On the 07th of December, 2011,

the record was handed over to the responsible officer of the High

Court and thereupon the LPAs were adjourned to 19.12.2011.

(24) The LPAs could not be taken up on 19th of December,

2011. On the 20th of December, 2011, the Hon’ble High Court

pronounced the judgments and dismissed the LPAs. The Hon’ble

High Court, exercising power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC,

ordered that the respondents-MLAs will be treated as a separate

group i.e. unattached MLAs. The relevant and operative part of

the judgment is reproduced here under:-

“39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals are dismissed. However, we accept the contention of Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 and exercising jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 33 C.P.C. grant limited relief of suspending the operation of orders dated 9.11.2009 and 10.11.2009 (P-4 and P-7) passed by the Speaker. Consequently, the appellant-MLAs, namely, Sarvshri Satpal Sangwan, Vinod Bhayana, Narender Singh, Zile Ram Sharma and Dharam Singh would not be deemed to be members of the INC party nor that of HJC (BL) till the decision of disqualification petitions. However, they would continue to be regarded as un-attached members of the Legislative Assembly for the purposes of attending the session and for no other purpose. They shall also not hold any office till the decision of disqualification petitions. The Speaker shall allot them a separate set of seats in the House. However, their status shall be subject to the final decision of the Speaker in disqualification petitions, which are pending before him. The Speaker is directed again to comply with the undertaking given to this Court and proceed with the disqualification petitions in accordance with law and decide the same on or before 30.4.2012. We make it clear that the Speaker may proceed in accordance with law and observations made in this order shall not be construed as findings on merit with regard to disqualification petitions.”

: 11 :

(25) Speaker and the 5 MLAs, who were respondents in

the petitions filed by Shri Bishnoi for their disqualifications, filed

separate SLPs in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The SLP filed by

the Speaker was bearing No.54 of 2012 and other SLPs were

bearing No.55 of 2012, No.59 of 2012 and No.72 of 2012. While

issuing notices, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 4th of January,

2012, stayed the operation of the order of the High Court dated

20.12.2011. The order passed in SLP(C) No.54 of 2012 is

reproduced here under:

“SLP (C) No.54 of 2012 Taken on board. Issue notice. Since the contesting respondent, who is the respondent No.1, Mr. KULDEEP BISHNOI, is represented on caveat, service on the said respondent is dispensed with. The proforma respondent Nos.2 to 6 are also represented and, accordingly, service on the said respondents is also dispensed with. Let the respondent Nos.7 and 9 be served, both in the usual course and also by way of dasti service. As far as the respondent No.8, Election Commission of India, is concerned, let a copy of the Special Leave Petition be served on Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned advocate, who usually appears for the Election Commission. In the meantime, the impugned order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 20th December, 2011, in L.P.A. No.366 of 2011, shall remain stayed.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx Sd/- 04.01.12 Sd/- Court Master Assistant Registrar”

The SLPs were adjourned to 15th of February, 2012

for final hearing.

(26) SLPs bearing No.54 of 2012, No.55 of 2012, No.59 of

2012 and No.72 of 2012 were decided by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court on 28.09.2012. The Hon’ble Supreme Court framed five

questions of law, which are as under:-

(a) Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to issue directions of an interim nature to a Member of the House while a disqualification petition of such Member is pending before the Speaker of a State

: 12 :

Legislative Assembly under Article 191 read with the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India?

(b) Whether even in exercise of its powers of judicial review, the High Court, as a constitutional authority, can issue mandatory directions to the Speaker of a State Assembly, who is himself a constitutional authority, to dispose of a disqualification petition within a specified time?

(c) Can the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, interfere with the disqualification proceedings pending before the Speaker and pass an order temporarily disqualifying a Member of the State Legislative Assembly, despite the law laid down by this Court in Raja Soap Factory vs. V. Shantharaj & Ors. [(1965(2) SCR 800] and in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261], to the contrary?

(d) When a disqualification petition filed under Article 191 read with the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India is pending consideration before the Speaker, can a parallel Writ Petition, seeking the same relief, be proceeded with simultaneously? And

(e) Did the High Court have jurisdiction to give directions under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, despite the express bar contained in the Explanation to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution?

In Para-40 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court, certain basic issues were discussed and decided. Para-40

of the Judgment is reproduced here under:-

“40. Most of the questions raised by Mr. Nidesh Gupta and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan contemplate a situation where the Speaker had taken a final decision on a disqualification petition. However, in the instant case we are really required to consider whether the High Court was competent to pass interim orders under its powers of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution when the disqualification proceedings were pending before the Speaker. In fact, even in Kihoto Hollohan’s case (supra), which has been referred to in extenso by Dr. Dhawan, the scope of judicial review has been confined to violation of constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity, but it was also very clearly indicated that having regard to the constitutional scheme in the Tenth Schedule, normally judicial review could not cover any stage prior to the making of the decision by the Speaker or the Chairman of the House, nor any quia timet action was contemplated or permissible.”

Relevant findings returned in Para-44 of the

Judgment are reproduced here under:

: 13 :

“44. The scheme of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution indicates that the Speaker is not competent to take a decision with regard to disqualification on ground of defection, without a determination under paragraph 4, and paragraph 6 in no uncertain terms lays down that if any question arises as to whether a Member of the House has become subject to disqualification, the said question would be referred to the Speaker of such House whose decision would be final. The finality of the decisions of the Speaker was in regard to paragraph 6 since the Speaker was not competent to decide a question as to whether there has been a split or merger under paragraph 4. The said question was considered by the Constitution Bench in Rajendra Singh Rana’s case (supra). While construing the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution in relation to Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, the Constitution Bench observed that the whole proceedings under the Tenth Schedule gets initiated as a part of disqualification proceedings. Hence, determination of the question of split or merger could not be divorced from the motion before the Speaker seeking a disqualification of the Member or Members concerned under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule. Under the scheme of the Tenth Schedule the Speaker does not have an independent power to decide that there has been split or merger as contemplated by paragraphs 3 and 4 respectively and such a decision can be taken only when the question of disqualification arises in a proceeding under paragraph 6. It is only after a final decision is rendered by the Speaker under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked.”

As it clear from the above, the Hon’ble Apex Court

held that only after a final decision is rendered by the Speaker

under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of

India when the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution is invokeable.

In Para-45 of the Judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court

held that since the decision of the Speaker on a petition under

paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule concerns only a question of

merger, on which the Speaker is not entitled to adjudicate, the

High Court could not have assumed jurisdiction under its powers

of review before a decision was taken by the Speaker under

paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. It was

further held that it is only in the proceedings under paragraph 6

that the Speaker assumes jurisdiction to pass a quasi-judicial

order, which is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High

: 14 :

Court, where the question relating to the disqualification is to be

considered and decided. It was also held that restraining the

Speaker from taking any decision under paragraph 6 is beyond

the jurisdiction of the High Court. Since the Constitution itself

has vested the Speaker with the power to take a decision under

paragraph 6 and care has to be taken to indicate such decision

of the Speaker would be final.

In Para-48 of the Judgment, it is held that the High

Court has no jurisdiction to pass such an order, which was in the

domain of the Speaker and the High Court has assumed

jurisdiction, which it never had in making the interim order,

which has the effect of preventing the 5 MLAs of the Haryana

Vidhan Sabha in participating in the proceedings of the

Legislative Assembly. The relevant directions/adjudication

contained in Para-48 of the Judgment are reproduced here

under:-

“48. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, which was in the domain of the Speaker. The High Court assumed the jurisdiction which it never had in making the interim order which had the effect of preventing the five MLAs in question from effectively functioning as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to the Speaker, as endorsed by the Division Bench, is, therefore, upheld to the extent that it directs the Speaker to decide the petitions for disqualification of the five MLAs within a period of four months. The said direction shall, therefore, be given effect to by Speaker. The remaining portion of the order disqualifying the five MLAs from effectively functioning as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha is set aside. The said five MLAs would, therefore, be entitled to fully function as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha without any restrictions, subject to the final decision that may be rendered by the Speaker in the disqualification petitions filed under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.”

(27) Only issue arises, in these cases, is whether in

the facts and circumstance the respondents/MLAs are

liable to be disqualified for the present term of the

Haryana Legislature or not? Onus of this issue was put on

the petitioner, Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi. No other issue was

claimed by any of the parties.

: 15 :

The petitioner, Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi appeared as his

sole witness in this case. He came in the witness box and then

closed his evidence. Documentary evidence put on record by him

were letter dated 09.11.2009 addressed to the Speaker and

signed by 4 MLAs, namely Servshri Satpal Sangwan, Vinod

Bhayana, Narender Singh and Zile Ram Sharma. It is exhibited

as Ex.P1.

Another document signed by the aforesaid 4 MLAs

put in on the record are the minutes of the meeting of Haryana

Janhit Congress (BL) Legislature Party held at Chandigarh on

09.11.2009, it is exhibited as Ex.P2.

It may be stated that except the letters Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2 no other document has been produced by the petitioner.

(28) The following delegates-cum-primary members of

the erstwhile HJC (BL) Party appeared as witnesses and deposed

regarding the factum of the decision of merger taken on 8th

November, 2009 in a meeting held at Karnal on 08.11.2009. The

names mentioned herein include 5 respondents:-

1. Shri Narender Singh, MLA (RW-1) 2. Shri Om Prakash Yadav (RW-2) 3. Shri Hukam Chand (RW-3) 4. Shri Vinod Bhayana, MLA (RW-4) 5. Shri Manoj Kumar (RW-5) 6. Shri Satpal Sangwan, MLA (RW-6) 7. Shri Purshotam (RW-7) 8. Shri Vinod Sharma (RW-8) 9. Shri Zile Ram Sharma, MLA (RW-9) 10. Shri Jaiveer Singh Yadav (RW-10) 11. Shri Rajinder Singh (RW-11) 12. Shri Surender Kumar (RW-12) 13. Shri Dharam Singh Chhoker, MLA (RW-13) 14. Shri Sumer Singh (RW-14) 15. Shri Rajinder Singh (RW-15) 16. Shri Udai Singh (RW-16) 17. Shri Rajinder Singh Chauhan (RW-17) 18. Shri Ashok Kumar (RW-18) 19. Shri Sanjay Kumar (RW-19) 20. Shri Dharmender Sanwal (RW-20) 21. Shri Shamsher (RW-21)

: 16 :

22. Shri Naresh Pahalwan (RW-22) 23. Shri Sanjay Mauri (RW-23) 24. Shri Vinit Sangwan (RW-24) 25. Shri Rajvir Singh (RW-25) 26. Shri Shyam Sharma (RW-26) 27. Shri Satbir Singh (RW-27) 28. Shri Zile Singh Phogat (RW-28) 29. Shri Bijinder Singh (RW-29) 30. Shri Ajay Rana (RW-30) 31. Shri Parveen (RW-31) 32. Shri Dinesh Bhutani (RW-32) 33. Shri Suresh Kumar (RW-33) 34. Shri Naresh Kumar (RW-34) 35. Shri Ram Avtar (RW-35) 36. Shri Satpal Singh (RW-36) 37. Shri Dev Raj (RW-37) 38. Shri Rakesh Kumar (RW-38) 39. Shri Ravinder Kumar (RW-39) 40. Shri Suresh Kumar (RW-40) 41. Shri Rakesh Khurana (RW-41) 42. Shri Jasbir Singh (RW-42) 43. Shri Rajesh Thakral (RW-43) 44. Shri Mitter Pal (RW-44) 45. Shri Gulab Singh (RW-45) 46. Shri Devvart (RW-46) 47. Shri Krishan Lal (RW-47) 48. Shri Ram Diya (RW-48) 49. Shri Krishan (RW-49) 50. Shri Sanjay Mehla (RW-50) 51. Shri Banarsi Dass (RW-51) 52. Shri Harish Kumar (RW-52) 53. Shri Lahna Singh (RW-53) 54. Shri Ramesh Kumar (RW-54) 55. Shri Aman Kumar (RW-55) 56. Shri Mohinder (RW-56) 57. Shri Suresh Kumar (RW-57) 58. Shri Narender (RW-58) 59. Shri Lehri Singh (RW-59) 60. Shri Mange Ram (RW-60) 61. Shri Ramu (RW-61) 62. Shri Sanjeev (RW-62) 63. Shri Sri Ram (RW-63) 64. Shri Vinay Jain (RW-64) 65. Shri Jail Singh (RW-65) 66. Shri Ram Kumar (RW-66) 67. Shri Dilbag (RW-67) 68. Shri Subhash (RW-68)

There were no vital discrepancy in their depositions

and stood the test of rigorous cross-examination by Mr. Satya

: 17 :

Pal Jain, Senior Advocate, counsel for Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi. The

statements were consistent and are worth credence.

(29) When the case came up for evidence on 19.12.2012,

4 witnesses whose name were in the list could not appear on

that date, Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, counsel for

the respondents requested for one more adjournment for

production of these witnesses. I was constrained to reject his

request because of constraint of time as the matter is to be

finalized within a specific time, which expires on 13th of January,

2013.

(30) It is argued by Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior

Advocate for the respondents that merger of the two political

parties i.e. HJC (BL) Party and INC Party, has to be presumed in

the facts and circumstances of the case. Sub-para 2 of Para-4 of

the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India envisages that

the merger of the original political party shall be deemed to have

taken place if, and only if, not less than 2/3rd of the strength of

the legislature party concerned have agreed to such merger. It is

clear from the language of the statute itself.

Sub-para 2 of Para-4 of the Tenth Schedule to the

Constitution is reproduced here under:

“4. Disqualification on ground of defection not to apply in case of merger.—(1) xxxxx (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the merger of the original political party of a member of a House shall be deemed to have taken place if, and only if, not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to such merger.”

(31) Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing

for the respondents, has emphasized that the basic feature of

Constitution is a parliamentary democracy. Tenth Schedule to

the Constitution of India for the first time gave recognition to the

role of political parties in constitutional document. In the scheme

of our Constitution maintaining the integrity of a political party is

: 18 :

important but it should not lead to an autocracy denying the

legislators the right to have the commitment to their

constituency.

(32) All provisions in the Constitution have to be

construed which should lead to inner party democracy and not to

a dictatorship over-riding and overwhelm majority. He argued

that Tenth Schedule to the Constitution was brought in the

Constitution to strengthen the parliamentary democracy and not

to stifle individual expression of conscience. A minority cannot

over-ride overwhelm voice which is 5/6th majority of the

erstwhile HJC (BL) Legislature Party in the cases in hand. The

voice of the majority cannot be stifled by a minority on the basis

of some assumption and presumption which have no legal basis.

One legislator out of 6 when running away from a

decision duly taken cannot over-ride a decision taken collectively

by all other i.e. 5 legislators and other, majority of the

delegates-cum-primary members of the HJC (BL) Legislature

Party.

(33) Our Constitution is a living entity and provides for

the domain and compulsions of changing times. In fact, Clause

(c) of sub-para of paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule gives effect

to the balance structure between party autocracy and individual

expression of conscience.

Only duty to cast upon the Speaker under the Tenth

Schedule of the Constitution is to see the claim which has been

made by the Members of the Assembly, who are not less than

2/3rd of the entire strength of legislative wing of the party. If it is

2/3rd or more, the merger of the two political parties is to be

presumed as mandated by the Constitution itself.

It is clear that once the claim has been made

regarding merger, the Hon’ble Speaker is to see whether 2/3rd

legislative members of the merging party have agreed to the

: 19 :

merger of the two political parties. However, 2/3rd members of

its legislature party have been proved to have concurred for the

merger, the presumption would be that two political parties have

merged in entirety.

(34) Admittedly, 4 members constitute 2/3rd of the

membership of HJC(BL) Legislature Party. It is also an admitted

fact in their application 4 legislators initially through their letter

had informed the Speaker regarding the merger of the two

political parties, i.e. Indian National Congress and the Haryana

Janhit Congress (BL), in the first instance. One more legislator

informed the Speaker through a separate letter on the same

day. It constituted 5/6th majority of the legislators belonging to

erstwhile HJC(BL) Party. In the circumstances, the lone legislator

i.e. Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi, who had changed his mind at the last

moment, cannot withhold the decision of merger taken in

accordance with the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

In the above circumstances, the merger has to be

deemed to have taken place, which is in consonance with the

mandate contained in the relevant sub-para 2 of Para-4 of the

Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The relevant part is

reproduced here in before.

(35) The matter can be looked at from another angle also.

A point, which has been raised by Shri Satya Pal Jain, Senior

Advocate that even if it is accepted, though not admitted that

the 4 people who joined Congress Party earlier constituted 2/3rd

and that they could do it under the Constitution, but the fifth

member, namely Shri Dharam Singh, MLA, has to be disqualified

because he came to join INC Party separately and at that point

of time the strength of HJC (BL) Party was reduced to mere two

and lone member did not constitute 2/3rd majority. This

argument is fallacious because when there is a merger of the

two political parties, the merging party i.e. HJC(BL) Party ceases

: 20 :

to exist and as such there is no question of defection on the part

of Shri Dharam Singh. As stated earlier, 5 MLAs had come at the

initial stage itself and this argument does not stand the test of

facts as well as law. In the facts and circumstances of the case,

the merger of two political parties has been proved as a fact.

(36) In addition, if 75 members who were unquestionably

(as it has not been questioned or seriously disputed) delegates-

cum-primary members of the HJC(BL) Party have decided to

merge with the INC Party in the meeting held at Karnal on

08.11.2009 the question put to the witnesses on behalf of the

Mr. Jain were that there was no such meeting. It is difficult to

apprehend that 75 members out of 108 gathered in a meeting

and 68 of them appeared before me as witnesses stating that

there was a meeting at Karnal on 8th November, 2009, there

remains no doubt regarding the factum of the meeting being

held on that date. Admittedly, Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi was not

present in the meeting and he cannot say from first hand

knowledge regarding what transpired at Karnal on that

day. A person who is not present cannot be deemed to

know and state as to whether the meeting was held or not

at Karnal or if held what were the decision taken therein.

Obviously, evidence could be brought on the record on behalf of

the petitioners to prove that there was no such meeting at such

a place. Shri Bishnoi who was admittedly not present in the

above said meeting is not in a position to deny the very

happening of an event taken place at a distance place i.e.

Karnal.

(37) The fact that no evidence or a witness has been

produced by Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi, showing that there was no

such meeting held at Karnal on that date, goes a long way to

show that there is no evidence to the effect that there was no

such meeting, more especially when 68 primary members-cum-

: 21 :

delegates of erstwhile party have categorically stated that there

was such a meeting. Moreover, they had attended it and passed

the requisite resolution of dissolution of HJC (BL) Party and its

merger with Indian National Congress Party. They testified to

this effect as a witness before me as well.

(38) Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi, the petitioner appeared as his

sole witness in support of contention made in his petitions.

Whether he can be implicitly believed or not shall be seen during

the discussion hereinafter but one significant fact is that he could

not produce several documentary evidence, which was

admittedly in his possession and were withheld by him. Adverse

presumption/conclusions have to be drawn and will be discussed

in the succeeding paragraphs.

(39) Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi was questioned whether he

could produce any document evidencing his election alleged to

have been held on 8th of November, 2009 as the President of

HJC (BL) Party, he said that he cannot but immediately stated

that he can produce it later. He, however, never produced it.

He was again questioned why he had not produced

any documentary evidence in support of his contention along

with his application praying disqualification of the respondents.

His reply was that “he has given all documents to his lawyer

which are with him and it was upto him to produce them”. The

concerned question and its answer is reproduced herein under:

“Question: Can you give only reason as to why no documentary evidence has been produced by you along with the petition before the Speaker?

Answer: I had given all the documents to my lawyer and those documents are with him and it is upto him as to which documents are attached with the petition.”

(40) Non-production of these documents raises serious

doubt about the authenticity of the claim made by Shri Kuldeep

Bishnoi. Why these documents were withheld is intriguing.

: 22 :

Similarly, he was asked regarding a meeting of the HJC(BL)

Legislature Party held on 23.10.2009. He said there is record of

this meeting, which is with him and he will produce it later. It

was never produced, in spite of the undertaking. Had the record

been produced, the contents and details of the proceedings

would have been disclosed and same could have had bearing on

the controversy in issue in this case.

Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi admitted that a meeting of the

legislative wing of his party was held on 06.11.2009. He,

however, said that he can’t give the time of the meeting. When

asked about the agenda of that meeting, he categorically stated

that “he can’t disclose the agenda of that meeting”, later on said

that, in fact, it was to endorse the proceedings of the previous

meeting. It is strange that, at one stage, he refuses to disclose

the agenda of the meeting and in the next breath says that it

was to endorse the proceedings of the previous meeting.

Obviously, a meeting cannot be held simply for endorsing the

proceedings of the previous meeting. It proves that he is a

reluctant witness and is not coming straight with the facts. This

fact creates a dent to his credibility as a witness.

He admitted that he had made a statement in Indian

Express on 23.10.2009 that some negotiations with the

Congress and other opposition parties were on and then said

voluntarily that in politics negotiations cannot be termed as a

formal and informal meeting. This goes to show that negotiations

regarding some sort of cooperation with the Congress were on at

that stage as well, which later on culminated into merger.

(41) Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi when put a direct question

regarding the contents of the meeting of the newly elected MLAs

of HJC(BL) Party on 23.10.2009, his reply was ‘there is a record

but at present he does not have it’. He also said that he will

produce it later, which he never did.

: 23 :

He has also admitted that when he was a Member of

the Parliament of the Congress Parliamentary Party he voted for

the No Confidence Motion brought against the Government of his

Party. That act is not deemed healthy in a parliamentary

democracy. He also admitted that he was a member of the

Congress Party technically even though he has voted against the

Congress Party and in favour of the No Confidence Motion.

He was invariably evasive to questions, which should

have normally been in his knowledge. For instance, when he was

put a question whether Ch. Bhajan Lal, his father, joined the

Cabinet headed by Late Ch. Devi Lal in 1977, his reply was “I

don’t know”.

In response to a pointed question, his reply was that

he does not remember when Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party

was formed, then said probably it was formed in July, 2007. He

admitted that he joined HJC(BL) Party in 2008 but said he does

not remember the exact date. He said that he was elected as

President of HJC(BL) Party on 2nd October, 2008 in a conference

held in Himachal Bhawan, Chandigarh. He admitted the word ‘BL’

against the name of his party connotes his father Bhajan Lal but

he said he did not join this party initially when it was formed in

2007, though it carried the word ‘BL’. It points out to a strange

anomaly in his deposition.

Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi has not produced any record

regarding his election as a President of HJC(BL) Party held in

Himachal Bhawan on 2nd October, 2008. He says that there were

108 primary members of HJC(BL) Party who elected him as a

President of the Party. When he was asked to give the names

and designations of other office bearers, he replied that there

was a long list of office bearers and he did not remember their

names and addresses and did not have the list of names of the

electors. He, however, admitted that he had a list, which he

never produced. This is indicative of the fact that he did not want

: 24 :

to disclose the list of the primary members-cum-delegates, who

elected him as a President of HJC (BL) Party on 2nd October,

2008. It is also significant that the witnesses, who appeared for

the respondents, had claimed that they were the same

delegates, who had elected him as the President. This fact has

not been disputed or doubted during their cross-examination.

The above facts will show Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi’s

ignorance about those facts which a man of that eminence will

always remember. More so, it is strange that a person who has

been a Member of Parliament and a Member of Legislative

Assembly did not remember the names of his colleague office

bearers. He showed ignorance regarding vital facts and exhibited

strange lapse of memory. It has to be seen in the light of fact

that 68 witnesses who appeared as witness for the respondents

were never questioned regarding the fact whether they were the

delegates-cum-primary members of HJC (BL) Party, at the time

when Shri Bishnoi was elected as a President and at a time when

a meeting was held at Karnal on 8th of November, 2009. The

presumption will also be that the person who gathered at Karnal

on 8th November, 2009 were the same delegates, who were

initially part of the meeting held at Himachal Bhawan,

Chandigarh and had elected him as a President. He has taken an

excuse i.e. lapse of memory and offered to produce a list which

he never did.

He has also offered that he can send the manifesto

of his party for the record, which he never sent. He categorically

stated that he is a born congressman. It shows strange

contradictions. There are numerous evasive replies in the

deposition of Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi.

(42) When Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi was specifically put a

question what were the conditions you wanted to lay down for

supporting a political party his reply was again evasive. These

conditions were within the party and cannot be disclosed.

: 25 :

Withholding the reply indicates that conditions for merger were

to be settled in anticipation of the merger of the two political

parties. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he had

met the Chief Minister, Haryana during the relevant period and

he kept meeting the Chief Minister.

Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi alleges that he had sent a fax

message on 8th November, 2009 or so to the Speaker but the

record of the office of Speaker shows that no such fax was

received in his office. In these circumstances, there is no other

option but to disbelieve Shri Bishnoi on this account. Similarly,

when he was specifically asked what issues were discussed by

him, when he met the Chief Minister, Haryana, he was again

evasive and said that it was one of the several meetings he had

and he did not want to disclose what transpired between them.

Mr. Bishnoi stated that his party had authorized him

to have one to one meeting with the Chief Minister to discuss all

issues and claims and he had a copy of such a resolution signed

by all the MLAs of his party. This document was not placed on

record for the reason best known to him. He further stated that

his party had authorized him to talk on all political issues with

the Chief Minister. Obviously, the reply does not exclude the

question of merger of the two political parties especially when in

his deposition before me he said that any of the six MLAs could

hold a meeting of the party.

The lapse of memory claimed and admitted by Mr.

Kuldeep Bishnoi is phenomenal. It is difficult to believe that Mr.

Bishnoi, who has been a Member of Parliament, Member of

Haryana Legislative Assembly and also the President of his party,

does not know whether Ch. Bhajan Lal was a Minister in the

Government of Ch. Devi Lal in 1977-79 and also whether his

father Ch. Bhajan Lal remained Chief Minister of Haryana

between 1979-1986. Showing ignorance of these vital facts

compel me to conclude that Mr. Bishnoi does not come out

: 26 :

straight with his deposition in this case and wants to withhold

facts for the reasons best known to him.

It is difficult to believe that when Mr. Kuldeep

Bishnoi admits that he lived in Chandigarh but could not give the

address of the house where he lived. When he was asked a

specific question whether he stayed in House No.1, Sector 3-A,

Chandigarh, his reply was “I don’t recollect”. This is a house

earmarked for the Chief Minister, Haryana. In response to a later

question, he admitted that he lived in that house and that house

is earmarked for the Chief Minister of Haryana. It is a strange

deposition on the part of a political leader, who has held high

offices in the party and has been a parliamentarian and a

legislator. It becomes more significant when he admits that he is

a member of the Hindu Joint Family, which was headed by Ch.

Bhajan Lal ji. His ignorance pertains to the period when Shri

Bishnoi was major and mature enough to know and remember

all those facts.

It is surprising as to why Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi did

not produce the documents, which he admits that he possesses

and even offered to produce. It raises a presumption that the

documents if produced would have gone against the contention

and stand taken by him in this deposition as a witness. The

record of the meeting of the HJC(BL) Legislature Party, which

admittedly was with him, was not produced especially when

question to this effect was put to him and is relevant for the

present proceedings.

(43) The requirement of law is that the best evidence

available should be produced before the Court/Tribunal. When

the relevant evidence is withheld it raises a presumption that

these documents would have gone against his contentions.

(44) Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate has also raised

question of the morality in politics regarding defection. To my

: 27 :

mind, this contention is highly misplaced in the present context

when the petitioner himself admitted that he defected from the

party on whose ticket he was originally elected and was

consequently disqualified for defection by the then Lok Sabha

Speaker, Shri Somnath Chatterjee.

(45) Shri Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate, counsel for the

applicant cited an authority of our own High Court reported as

‘1997(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 519 [Ram Bilas Sharma v. Speaker,

Haryana Vidhan Sabha, (P&H) (Full Bench)]’, which is a

case of defection before the Amendment in the relevant part of

Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and does not have

remotest relevance to the controversy in issue therein the only

question to be decided is whether there is merger of the two

political parties or not? It was not an issue in the above-said

authority quoted by Mr. Jain.

Mr. Jain has also cited an authority of the Hon’ble

Apex Court reported as ‘2006(11) SCC 1 (Jagjit Singh v.

State of Haryana and others)’, where the basic point in issue

was whether an opportunity has been given to the parties to

lead evidence and put up their case. In this case, fullest

opportunity was given to the parties to adduce evidence in the

matter. The witnesses of parties were cross-examined by the

counsel for the opposite party and no scope remains for raising

any doubt regarding the observance of rules of natural justice.

The above citations have no bearing on the

controversy in this case. The merger of the two political parties

has been proved to a hilt as a fact on the basis of the facts and

the evidence led by the parties.

(46) A technical objection has been raised by one of the

counsel for the respondents regarding the defective verification

of the affidavit filed in the petition. It is argued that the

verification is in the applications is not in accordance with law

: 28 :

because it is verified as ‘true to my knowledge and belief’. The

argument is that a verification has to be either by knowledge or

on belief. To my mind, this argument is too technical to affect

the merits of the case. I will not take cognizance of this hyper-

technical objection.

(47) In the light of the above discussions and the fact

that 75 of the delegates-cum-primary members of a party out of

108 had unanimously decided regarding the merger of the two

political parties, the merger of the two political parties is held to

have been proved conclusively. No evidence has been produced

by the applicant to say that the persons, who have deposed as a

witness and claimed to be the delegates-cum-primary members

were not genuine persons and were not delegates-cum-primary

members as claimed by them.

(48) It is very difficult to disbelieve the consistent

testimony of 68 persons who claimed themselves as delegates-

cum-primary members of HJC (BL) Party and have categorically

stated that they have decided the merger of the two political

parties in a meeting held at Karnal on 08.11.2009. It is to be

seen in the light of the fact that admittedly, there were only 108

primary members-cum-delegates of the HJC (BL) Party and 75 of

them had participated in the meeting held at Karnal on

08.11.2009.

(49) It is also significant that my predecessor in office had

also accepted the factum of the merger of two political parties

vide his orders dated 09.11.2009 and 10.11.2009.

(50) In the light of the facts and discussions, I have no

option but to dismiss the petitions No.1 to 5 filed by Shri

Kuldeep Bishnoi under Article 191 read with Tenth Schedule of

the Constitution of India and the rules framed thereunder

seeking disqualification of the respondents as a Member of the

: 29 :

Haryana Vidhan Sabha on the ground of their allegedly given up

membership of their original political party i.e. HJC (BL). The

merger of the two political parties, namely Haryana Janhit

Congress (BL) Party and Indian National Congress Party, has

been proved as a fact and as such, all the petitions are hereby

dismissed. Since petitions No.6 to 14 stood clubbed with

petitions No.1 to 5 as there was a common question of law and

fact involved, these petitions will also suffer the same fate as 1

to 5 and are hereby dismissed as well, as also no evidence was

led in Petitions No.6 to 14 by the petitioners in the above

petitions. They relied on the evidence put in by Shri Bishnoi in

Petitions No.1 to 5, which were filed by Shri Bishnoi himself. It is

pertinent to mention here that for the last several hearings in

this case none was appearing on behalf of petitioners 6 to 14.

(51) The follow-up action may be taken in accordance

with law.

(52) A copy of this order be placed on the file of each of

the 14 petitions.

Place: Chandigarh

Date: 13.01.2013 Sd/-

(KULDEEP SHARMA) Speaker,

Haryana Vidhan Sabha.

……

Place: Chandigarh

Date: 13.01.2013 Sd/-

Sumit Kumar Secretary,

Haryana Vidhan Sabha, Chandigarh

: 30 :

Annexure-I

: 31 :

Annexure-II

: 32 :

: 33 :