Home› India› Ministry of Law and Justice› Publication of Notification regarding Disqualification of 9 ...
Date: 2022-07-22 Category: Extra Ordinary State: Union Government Country: India

Publication of Notification regarding Disqualification of 9 Members of Puducherry Legislative Assembly

Issued by Ministry of Law and Justice · Legislative Department

Research with AI Agent Chat with Document Generate Summary Translate Helpful Share Add to Project Create Task

Executive Summary & Key Takeaways

## Policy Analysis Report: Disqualification Petition Regarding Puducherry Legislative Assembly Members **1. Executive Summary:** This report analyzes a notification issued by the President of India regarding a petition seeking the disqualification of nine members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly under Section 141a of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. The petition, initiated in 2017, alleged that these members held "Offices of Profit," potentially violating disqualification rules. The Election Commission of India (ECI) was consulted for its opinion. Ultimately, the President deemed the petition infructuous due to the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. The ECI also returned the reference as infructuous. This report details the background, key events, and the rationale behind the decision, based solely on the provided policy text. **2. Introduction:** This report aims to provide an informative overview of a presidential notification concerning a disqualification petition involving nine members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly. The analysis is based exclusively on the information presented in the provided gazette notification and annexed ECI opinion, focusing on the process, rationale, and outcome of the petition. **3. Policy Overview:** This case revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 141a of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, concerning disqualification of members holding "Offices of Profit." * **Core Objective(s) (as inferred from the text):** The core objective, based on the initial petition, was to determine whether nine named members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly were holding positions that constituted "Offices of Profit" under the relevant legislation, thereby making them liable for disqualification from their legislative roles. A further objective was to determine if the exempted offices were still subject to disqualification if the holders were receiving remuneration other than compensatory allowance. **4. Background and Rationale:** * The policy text suggests the issue stems from concerns about the integrity and impartiality of elected officials. The petition alleges a conflict of interest, arguing that holding certain positions ("Offices of Profit") could compromise the members' independence and objectivity in representing their constituents. The law seeks to prevent undue influence and ensure that legislators prioritize public service over personal gain from government positions. The amendment sought to deal with the remuneration of those holding exempted positions. **5. Key Provisions / Changes:** This document does not represent a new policy or an amendment. Rather, it documents the process and outcome of a specific case involving a disqualification petition. There are no policy changes being made; rather a judgement is being rendered. The key events include: * A petition was filed with the President of India in 2017, alleging that nine members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly were holding "Offices of Profit." * The President referred the petition to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for its opinion under Section 144 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. * The ECI sought information from the Puducherry government regarding the positions held by the members and the benefits associated with those positions. * One of the members, Shri R.K.R. Anantharaman, filed a Writ Petition before the Madras High Court challenging the proceedings. * While the matter was pending, the Puducherry Legislative Assembly was dissolved following general elections. * The ECI, considering the dissolution, returned the reference to the President as infructuous. * The President, based on the ECI's opinion, declared the petition infructuous due to the dissolution of the Assembly. **6. Target Audience and Stakeholders:** Based on the text, the direct stakeholders include: * The nine members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly named in the petition. * Sh. Om Sakthi Segar, the petitioner. * The President of India. * The Election Commission of India. * The Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice. * Potentially, the voters of Puducherry who are indirectly affected by the eligibility and representation of their elected officials. **7. Implementation Aspects (Inferred):** * **Responsible agency/bodies mentioned:** The President of India, the Election Commission of India, the Puducherry government (specifically the Chief Secretary and Under Secretary), and the Madras High Court (due to the Writ Petition). * **Timelines or procedures specified in the text:** The timeline began with the petition in July 2017 and concluded with the President's order in July 2022. The procedures followed the established legal framework for disqualification petitions under the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, involving referral to the ECI for opinion and subsequent presidential decision. * Given the dismissal of the petition as infructuous, no further implementation is required. **8. Expected Outcomes / Impact of Changes:** Since the petition was deemed infructuous due to the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, there are no direct policy outcomes or impacts stemming from this particular case. The decision essentially closes the matter without a definitive ruling on the merits of the disqualification allegations. **9. Conclusion:** The presidential notification and annexed ECI opinion document the resolution of a specific disqualification petition related to members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly. While the allegations of holding "Offices of Profit" were not definitively addressed, the case highlights the importance of adhering to legal frameworks for maintaining the integrity of elected officials. The dismissal of the petition underscores that changes in external circumstances (dissolution of the assembly) can render legal proceedings moot.

Key Entities Referenced

New Delhi: Place of publication of the gazette notification. Election Commission of India: Constitutional body that was consulted regarding the disqualification of members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly. President of India: The office to which the petition regarding disqualification of Puducherry MLAs was originally submitted, and the office that ultimately made the decision based on the Election Commission's opinion. Sh. Om Sakthi Segar: Petitioner who filed the petition seeking disqualification of members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly. Puducherry: Union territory in India whose Legislative Assembly members' disqualification was under consideration. Government of Union Territories Act, 1963: Act of Parliament under which the disqualification of members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly was being considered. Shri K. Lakshminarayanan: Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, one of the respondents in the disqualification petition. Shri. R.K.R. Anantharaman: Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, one of the respondents in the disqualification petition. Shri R. Siva: Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, one of the respondents in the disqualification petition. Smt. A. Geetha: Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, one of the respondents in the disqualification petition. Shri T. Djeamourthy: Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, one of the respondents in the disqualification petition. Shri M.N.R. Balan: Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, one of the respondents in the disqualification petition. Shri E. Theeppainthan: Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, one of the respondents in the disqualification petition. Smt. V. Vizeaveny: Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, one of the respondents in the disqualification petition. Shri N. Danavelou: Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, one of the respondents in the disqualification petition. Puducherry Members of the Legislative Assembly Prevention of Disqualification Act, 1994: Act of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly which defines which offices are exempt from disqualification. Madras High Court: Court where R.K.R. Anantharaman filed a Writ Petition (R.K.R. Anantharaman vs. The Secretary to the President of India Ors. WP No. 269672018) regarding his disqualification. Rajbhavan: Constituency of K. Lakshminarayanan Manavely: Constituency of R.K.R. Anantharaman Orleanpath: Constituency of R. Siva Neravy T.R. Pattinam: Constituency of A. Geetha Ariyankuppam: Constituency of T. Jayamoorthy Ozhukarai: Constituency of M.N.R. Balan Oussoudu: Constituency of E. Theepanjam Nettapakkam: Constituency of N. Vijayaveny Bahour: Constituency of N. Dhanavelu Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Puducherry Amendment Act 1986: Act related to exemption of Chairman, Slum Clearance Board from disqualification. Government of Puducherry: The administrative body of the Union Territory of Puducherry. Lt. Governor of Puducherry: Dissolved the previous Legislative Assembly
Official Source Record View Original Source →
See Full Document Text
रजिस्ट्री स.ं डी.एल.- 33004/99 REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 सी.जी.-डी.एल.-अ.-22072022-237457 xxxGIDHxxx CG-DL-E-22072022-237457 xxxGIDExxx असाधारण EXTRAORDINARY भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii) PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii) प्राजधकार स ेप्रकाजित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY स.ं 3203] नई दिल्ली, िुक्रिार, िुलाई 22, 2022/आषाढ़ 31, 1944 No. 3203] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, JULY 22, 2022/ASHADHA 31, 1944 जिजध और न्य ाय तरालं ालय (जिधायी जिभाग) अजधसचू ना नई दिल् ली, 22 िुलाई, 2022 का.आ. 3364(अ).—राष्‍टर पजत ाारा दकया गया जनम्न जलजखत आिेि सिवससाधारण क िानकारी के जलए प्रकाजित दकया िाता ह:ै-- आिेि नई दिल्ली, 20 िुलाई, 2022 भारत के राष्ट्रपजत के सतक्ष, श्री ओत िजि सगे र (जिसे इसतें इसके पश्चात् याची कहा गया ह)ै न े तारीख 12.07.2017 को एक याजचका प्रस्ट्तुत क थी, जिसतें याची ने पुड्डुचेरी संघ राज्यक्षेराल क जिधान सभा के जनम्नजलजखत 9 सिस्ट्यों, अथावसत् श्री के. लक्ष्तीनारायणन, श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरातन, श्री आर. जििा, श्रीतती ए.गीता, श्री टी. ियातूर्तवस, श्री एत.एन.आर. बालन, श्री ई. थीप्पायंथन, श्रीतती िी.जिियािेणी और श्री एन. धनािेलू (जिन्ह ें इसत ें इसके पश्चात ् प्रत्यथी कहा गया ह)ै , ाारा ‘लाभ के पि’ धारण करन े के आधार पर संघ राज्यक्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(1)(क) के अधीन जनरहतवस ा क तांग क थी । और, उि याजचका, भारत जनिावसचन आयोग को संघ राज्यक्षराले िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(4) के अधीन प्रत्यर्थवसयों क अजभकजथत जनरहतवस ा पर आयोग क राय प्राप्त करन े के जलए जनर्िष्टवस क गई थी । और, याची ने यह कथन दकया ह ै दक पूिोि 9 प्रत्यर्थवसयों तें से श्री के. लक्ष्तीनारायणन और श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरातन ने सरकार के अधीन ऐस े लाभ के पि धारण दकए हुए थ,े िो ‘पुड्डुचरे ी जिधान सभा सिस्ट्य (जनरहतवस ा 4933 GI/2022 (1)2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] जनिारण) अजधजनयत, 1994’ के अधीन जनरहतवस ा से छूट प्राप्त नहीं थे और इसजलए, संघ राज्यक्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(1)(क) के अधीन जनरर्हतवस होन े के जलए िायी थे । और, याची न े आग े यह कथन दकया ह ै दक िेष 7 प्रत्यथी जिधान सभा सिस्ट्यों न े सरकार के अधीन ऐसे लाभ के पि धारण दकए हुए थ,े िो ‘पुड्डुचेरी जिधान सभा सिस्ट्य (जनरहतवस ा जनिारण) अजधजनयत, 1994’ के अधीन छूट प्राप्त पिों क अनुसूची तें सजम्तजलत दकए गए थे, ककंतु जनरहतवस ा से दकसी छूट का िािा करने के जलए, यह अपेजक्षत था दक िे उि अनुसूची के अधीन उजल्लजखत परंतुक के अधीन यथा आज्ञाजपत प्रजतकरात्तक भत्ते स े जभन्न, पाररश्रजतक क दकसी फ स को प्राप्त नहीं कर रह े थ े या उसके हकिार नहीं थ े । याची न े यह अजभकथन दकया ह ै दक य े प्रत्यथी जनिी कतवसचाररि ंि और साथ ही कतवसचाररि ंि चाजलत कार के जलए उपबंधों के अजतररि, तानिेय प्राप्त कर रह े थ े और इसजलए, िे जनरहतवस ा के जलए िायी बने । और, िब भारत जनिावसचन आयोग उि याजचका के तुद्दे क सतीक्षा कर रहा था, श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरातन, जिधान सभा सिस्ट्य, ने ताननीय तद्रास उच्च न्यायालय के सतक्ष आर.के.आर. अनन्तरातन बनात भारत के राष्ट्रपजत के सजचि और अन्य [ररट याजचका सं0 26967/2018] नातक ररट याजचका फाइल क थी । तत्पश्चात्, ताननीय तद्रास उच्च न्यायालय न े ररट याजचका सं0 26967/2018 के तातले त ें तारीख 23.11.2021 को अपना जनणवसय दिया था, जिसके ाारा पूिोि तातला जनम्नजलजखत सप्रं ेक्षण के साथ जनपटाया गया था :-- “2. याची क ओर से उपजस्ट्थत हुए जिाान काउंसेल ने यह जनिेिन दकया दक सतय के व्यतीत होने के कारण, उि पि को धारण करन े का कायवसकाल ही सताप्त हो गया था, और इसजलए, इस याजचका त ें क गई याचना जनष्‍टफल हो गई ह ै।” “3. िसू री ओर, जातीय प्रत्यथी/भारत जनिावसचन आयोग क ओर से उपजस्ट्थत हुए जिाान काउंसेल न े यह जनिेिन दकया दक भारत जनिावसचन आयोग न े नोरटस िारी दकया ह,ै जिसके पररणातस्ट्िरूप याची क पुड्डुचेरी जिधान सभा के सिस्ट्य के रूप त ें जनरहतवस ा ह,ै और उि नोरटस इस ररट याजचका त ें चनु ौती के अधीन ह,ै और यदि इस याजचका को बंि कर दिया िाता ह,ै तो, भारत जनिावसचन आयोग, आक्षेजपत नोरटस के अनुसरण त ें अगली कायवसिाजहयों के साथ अग्रसर होगा । अत:, आयोग यह जनिेिन करता ह ै दक याची यह जिजनश्चय करन े के जलए स्ट्ितंराल ह ैदक क्या िह इस ररट याजचका को िापस लेने के जलए इच्छुक ह ैया नहीं ।” “4. उपरोि को िज ष्टगत करत े हुए, इस न्यायालय का यह तत ह ै दक इस ररट याजचका त ें चुनौती दिए गए नोरटस के अनुसरण तें यह याची के जिरुद्ध आरंभ क गई अगली कायवसिाजहयों को, यदि कोई हो, चुनौती िेने के जलए याची को स्ट्ितंरालता प्रिान करत ेहुए इस ररट याजचका को बंि करना ही पयावसप्त होगा ।” और, पूिोि ररट याजचका ताननीय तद्रास उच्च न्यायालय के सतक्ष लंजबत थी, भारत के जनिावसचन आयोग ने 06.04.2021 को होने िाल े ततिान क तारीख के साथ तारीख 26.02.2021 के, प्रेस नोट सं.ईसीआई/पीएन/16/2021 ाारा, पुड्डुचेरी जिधान सभा के साधारण जनिावसचन क घोषणा क थी । पूिोक्त जनिावसचन के पररणात 02.05.2021 को घोजषत दकए गए थे और पड्ु डुचेरी के ताननीय उपराज्य पाल ाारा रािपराल अजधसूचना सं.XIVएलएएस/जिघटन/2021, तारीख 03.05.2021 ाारा पूि वसजिधान सभा जिघरटत कर िी गई थी । और, भारत जनिावसचन आयोग ने, संघ राज्य क्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(4) के अधीन तारीख 04.09.2017 के पूिोक्त जनिदेशि को, इस आिय क अपनी राय के साथ दक जनिदेशि जनष्‍टफ ल हो गया ह,ै तारीख 02.02.2022 को िापस लौटा दिया था । अत:, अब, त,ैं रात नाथ कोविंि, भारत का राष्‍टर पजत, भारत जनिावसचन आयोग ाारा िी गई राय के आलोक त ें तातले पर जिचार करन े के पश् चात्, संघ राज्य क्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(4) के अधीन तुझे प्रित् त िजक्त यों का प्रयोग करत े हुए, यह अजभजनधावसररत करता ह ूँ दक जिधानसभा के जिघटन को ध् यान तें रखत े हुए, याजचका जनष्‍टफ ल हो गई ह ै। 20 िुलाई, 2022 भारत का राष्‍टर पजत[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपराल : असाधारण 3 राष्ट्रपजत के आिेि स ेसबं जं धत उपाबधं भारत जनिाचवस न आयोग जनिावसचन सिन अिोक रोड, नई दिल्ल ी-110 001 2017 का जनिदेशि तातला स.ं 9(पी) [सघं राज्य क्षराले िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14 के अधीन भारत के ताननीय राष्‍टर पजत स ेजनिदेशि] जनिदेशि : 2017 का जनिदेशि तातला सं. 9(पी) - संघ राज्य क्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(4) के अधीन भारत के ताननीय राष्‍टर पजत से जनिदेशि प्राप् त हुआ ह,ै जिसतें संघ राज्य क्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा14(1)(क) के अधीन पुड्डुचरे ी जिधान सभा के 9 सिस्ट् यों क अजभकजथत जनरहतवस ा के प्रश् न पर भारत जनिावसचन आयोग क राय क तांग क गई ह।ै राय 1. यह संघ राज्य क्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(4) के अधीन भारत के ताननीय राष्‍टर पजत स े प्राप् त जनिदेशि तारीख 04.09.2017 ह,ै जिसतें इस प्रश् न पर भारत जनिावसचन आयोग क राय तागं ी गई ह ै दक क्य ा पड्ु डुचेरी जिधान सभा के जनम्न जलजखत 9 सिस्ट् य संघ राज्य क्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(1)(क) के अधीन जनरहतवस ा स े ग्रस्ट् त हो गए ह:ैं- क्र.स.ं नात जनिाचवस न क्षराले धाररत पि 1. के. लक्ष्तीनारायणन 14-रािभिन तुख्य तंराली का संसिीय सजचि 2. आर.के.आर. अनन्तरतण 20-तनािेली सरकारी सचेतक 3. आर. जििा 16-आरलेयानपथ अध्यक्ष, पुड्डुचेरी औद्योजगक संिद्धनवस जिकास और जनिेि जनगत 4. ए. गीथा 28-जनराव् य टी. अध् यक्ष, जिद्युत जनगत आर.पट्टीनात 5. टी. ियातूर्तवस 19-अरयंकुप् पत अध् यक्ष, पुड्डुचेरी योिना प्राजधकरण 6. एत.एन.आर. बालान 06-ओझुकराय अध् यक्ष, पुड्डुचेरी पयवसटन जिकास जनगत 7. ई. थीपंित 03-औस्ट् सुडू अध् यक्ष, गन्िी बस्ट्ती उन्तलू न बोडवस 8. एन. जिियािेणी 22-नीजतपक् कत अध् यक्ष, पुड्डुचेरी जडस्ट् रीलरीि जलजतटेड 9. एन. धनािेल ू 23-बाहौर अध् यक्ष, पुड्डुचेरी क जष उत्पाि और नागररक आपूर्तवस जनगत 2. उक्त जनिदेशि त,ें जनरहतवस ा का प्रश् न भारत के ताननीय राष्ट्रपजत के सतक्ष, श्री ओत िजि सेगर (जिसे इसतें इसके पश्चात् "याची" कहा गया ह)ै ाारा प्रस्ट् तुत याजचका तारीख 12.07.2017 से उभूभूत हुआ ह,ै जिसत ें याची ने 'लाभ का पि' धारण करने के आधारों पर, संघ राज्य क्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(1)(क) के अधीन पूिोक्त पड्ु डुचरे ी जिधानसभा सिस्ट् य (जिन् ह ेंइसतें इसके पश् चात ्"प्रत्य थी" कहा गया ह)ै क जनरहतवस ा क तागं क ह ै। तथ्य : 3. याची न े यह कथन दकया ह ैदक पूिोि 9 प्रत्यर्थवसयों त ें स े श्री के. लक्ष्तीनारायणन और श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरतण ने सरकार के अधीन ऐसे लाभ के पि धारण दकए हुए थ,े िो ‘पुड्डुचेरी जिधान सभा सिस्ट्य (जनरहतवस ा जनिारण) अजधजनयत, 1994’ के अधीन जनरहतवस ा से छूट प्राप्त नहीं थ े और इसजलए, संघ राज्यक्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(1)(क) के अधीन जनरर्हतवस होने के जलए िायी थे । याची ने आग े यह कथन दकया ह ै दक िेष 7 प्रत्यथी जिधान सभा सिस्ट्यों ने सरकार के अधीन ऐसे लाभ के पि धारण दकए हुए थ,े िो ‘पुड्डुचेरी जिधान सभा सिस्ट्य (जनरहतवस ा जनिारण) अजधजनयत, 1994’ के अधीन छूट प्राप्त पिों क अनुसूची त ें सजम्तजलत दकए गए थे, ककंतु जनरहतवस ा स े दकसी छूट का िािा करने के जलए यह अपेजक्षत था दक िे उि अनुसूची के अधीन उजल्लजखत परंतुक के अधीन यथा आज्ञाजपत प्रजतकरात्तक भत्ते से जभन्न, पाररश्रजतक क दकसी फ स को प्राप्त नहीं कर रह ेथे या उसके जलए हकिार नहीं थे । याची ने यह अजभकथन दकया4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ह ै दक य े प्रत्यथी, जनिी कतवसचाररि ंि और साथ ही कतवसचाररि ंि चाजलत कार के जलए उपबंधों के अजतररि तानिेय प्राप्त कर रह ेथ ेऔर इसजलए, िे जनरहतवस ा के जलए िायी बन े । 4. आयोग न,े तारीख 13.12.2017 को तुख्य सजचि, पुड्डुचरे ी सरकार को पूिोि याजचका क एक प्रजत संलग्न करते हुए एक पराल िारी दकया और उि प्राजधकारी स े यह अनुरोध दकया दक िह प्रत्यर्थवसयों ाारा धाररत पिों के बारे त ें कजतपय िास्ट्तजिक सूचना उपलब्ध कराए । 5. आयोग के पराल तारीख 13.12.2017 के अनुपालन त,ें आयोग को, पुड्डुचरे ी सरकार के अिर सजचि श्री एत. कानन स े एक पराल तारीख 23.02.2018 प्राप्त हुआ । राज्य सरकार न े इस पराल के ाारा आयोग को सूजचत दकया दक संसिीय सजचि का पि और स्ट्िायत्त जनकायों/जनगतों के अध्यक्ष/सभापजत आदि के पिों को, क्रति: संसिीय सजचि (जििेष भत्ते का संिाय और जनरहतवस ा जनिारण) अजधजनयत, 1971 तथा पड्ु डुचेरी जिधान सभा सिस्ट्य (जनरहतवस ा जनिारण) अजधजनयत, 1994 के अनुसार जनरहतवस ा से छूट प्रिान क गई ह ै । इसके अजतररि, यह उल्लेख दकया गया था दक अध् यक्ष, गन्िी बस्ट्ती उन्तूलन बोडवस के पि को, गन्िी बस्ट्ती (सुधार और उन्तूलन) (पुड्डुचरे ी संिोधन) अजधजनयत, 1986 के उपबंधों के अधीन जनरहतवस ा स े छूट प्राप्त थी । इसके अजतररि, यह कथन दकया गया था दक श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरतण ाारा धाररत, सरकारी सचेतक पि को दकसी कानूनी उपबंध के अधीन जनरहतवस ा से छूट प्राप्त नहीं थी । 6. चूंदक िह पि, िो जनरहतवस ा से छूट प्राप्त नहीं था, सरकारी सचेतक का ही पि था, आयोग ने उि पि के बारे त ें सुसंगत िानकारी िैस े इस पि पर जनयुजि के जलए जिम्तेिार प्राजधकारी, जनयुजि आििे क प्रजत और इससे संबद्ध फायिों के ब्यौरे एकजरालत करने के जलए तुख्य सजचि, पुड्डुचेरी सरकार को एक अन्य पराल तारीख 21.03.2018 िारी दकया था, जिससे िह अपनी राय तैयार कर सके । 7. आयोग के पराल तारीख 21.03.2018 के अनुपालन तें, पुड्डुचरे ी सरकार ने पराल तारीख 27.06.2018 ाारा अपना उत्तर दिया था, जिसतें यह कथन दकया गया था दक ताननीय उपराज्यपाल, पुड्डुचेरी ने आंतररक जिभागीय रटप्पण सं0 एच.12035/1/2016/ डीपीएआर/ सीसीडी(1) तारीख 22.05.2018 ाारा यह आिेि दिया था दक श्री आर. जििा, श्री एत.एन.आर. बालान, श्रीतती ए. गीथा, श्री िी. जिियािेणी और श्री एन. धनािेलू क उनके अपन-े अपन े जनगतों (िैसा पैरा 1 के अधीन सारणी तें उजल्लजखत ह)ै के अध्यक्ष/सभापजत के रूप त ें जनयुजि का पुनरीक्षण दकया गया था और उन्ह ें इससे आग े उि जनगतों के गैर-सरकारी अध्यक्ष/सभापजत के रूप त ें जनयुि दकया गया था, जिन्ह ें संबंजधत जनगत के सगं त अनुच्छेिों/सगं त ज्ञापन/ अजधजनयतों के अनुसार कायवस करना था । तथाजप, सरकारी सचेतक के पि के बारे त ें आयोग ाारा तांगे गए ब्यौरे उि उत्तर के साथ उपलब्ध नहीं कराए गए थे । 8. आयोग न,े पराल तारीख 27.06.2018 ाारा श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरतण से, उसक जनरहतवस ा के जलए याजचका त ें क गई याचना के संबंध त ेंजलजखत उत्तर/जनिेिन क भी तागं क थी । 9. आयोग के पराल तारीख 27.06.2018 के उत्तर तें श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरतण ने, पराल तारीख 12.07.2018 ाारा अपना उत्तर प्रस्ट्ततु दकया था, जिसतें यह जनिेिन दकया गया था दक सरकारी सचेतक क जनयुजि को कोई कानूनी सतथवसन प्राप्त नहीं था और दकसी जििषे ाजधकार तथा जििेष भत्ते के अभाि तें सरकारी सचेतक को लाभ के पि के आधारों पर जनरहतवस ा लागू नहीं होती ह ै। आगे यह और जनिेिन दकया गया था दक िह पड्ु डुचरे ी जिधान सभा का सिस्ट्य होने के जलए ही िेतन और भत्त े प्राप्त कर रहा था और िह सरकारी सचेतक का पि धारण करन े के जलए कोई पाररश्रजतक प्राप्त नहीं कर रहा था । इसके अजतररि, यह जनििे न दकया गया था दक ‘सचेतक’ का पि एक जतथ्या नात ह ैऔर यह दक ऐसा कोई पि या तो जिजध ाारा या पुड्डुचरे ी संघ राज्यक्षेराल तें अजधसूचना ाारा स जित नहीं दकया गया ह ै । इन तथ्यों को ध्यान तें रखते हुए, श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरतण न े यह याचना क थी दक जनिदेशि को संघ राज्यक्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 और पड्ु डुचरे ी जिधान सभा कायवस जनयत के अधीन यथा अनुध्यात जिजहत जिजधक अपेक्षाओं सजहत पुन: प्रस्ट्तुतीकरण के जलए भारत के ताननीय राष्ट्रपजत तहोिय को िापस लौटाया िाए । 10. आयोग न,े पूिोि उत्तर से असंतुष्ट होकर, श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरतण को एक नोरटस तारीख 04.09.2018 िारी दकया था, जिसतें उसे 20.09.2018 को या उससे पहले जलजखत कथन फाइल करने के जलए और 27.09.2018 को या तो स्ट्ियं या जिजधक प्रजतजनजध के ताध्यत से आयोग के सतक्ष उपजस्ट्थत होने का जनिेि दिया गया था । तारीख 20.09.2018 को, श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरतण से एक पराल प्राप्त हुआ था, जिसतें जनयत सनु िाई, िो 27.09.2018 को होनी थी, को स्ट्थजगत करन े का अनुरोध दकया गया था । आयोग न,े ऊपर उजल्लजखत अनुरोध को स्ट्िीकार दकया और सुनिाई को तारीख 12.10.2018 तक के जलए स्ट्थजगत दकया ।[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपराल : असाधारण 5 11. तारीख 11.10.2018 को, श्री आर.के.आर. अनन्तरतण के जिजधक प्रजतजनजधयों से आयोग को यह सूजचत करत े हुए पराल प्राप्त हुआ था दक उि जिधान सभा सिस्ट्य ने, ताननीय तद्रास उच्च न्यायालय के सतक्ष आर.के.आर. अनन्तरतण बनात भारत के राष्ट्रपजत के सजचि और अन्य [ररट याजचका स0ं 26967/2018] नातक ररट याजचका फाइल क ह,ै जिसतें आयोग को प्रत्यथी सं0 2 के रूप त ें सूचीबद्ध दकया गया था । आग े यह और कथन दकया गया था दक ताननीय उच्च न्यायालय न े आििे तारीख 11.10.2018 ाारा आयोग को भारत के ताननीय राष्ट्रपजत ाारा दकए गए जनिदेशि तारीख 04.09.2017 के अधीन सभी कायवसिाजहयों के प्रितवसन और साथ ही आयोग के नोरटस तारीख 04.09.2018 पर रोक तंिूर क थी । उि आिेि का सुसंगत भाग जनिदेशि के तातल े तें संबंध तें नीचे पनु :प्रस्ट्तुत दकया गया ह ै:-- “2. याची क ओर से जिद्यतान िररष्ठ काऊंसेल के अनुसार, प्रथत प्रत्यथी ाारा उसके पराल तारीख 04.09.2017 के बाििूि भी, जिसतें भारत जनिावसचन आयोग से सघं राज्यक्षराले िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(3) और धारा 14(4) के अधीन राय क तांग क गई थी, जिसे बाि तें संसूचना तारीख 27.06.2018 ाारा प्रजतजनििदेश तारीख 13.07.2018 के अनुसरण तें उत्तर के प्रस्ट्ततु दकए िाने के जलए जनिेजित दकया गया था, अब 2017 का प्रजतजनििदेश तातला सं0 9(पी) के अधीन आक्षेजपत नोरटस तारीख 04.09.2018 जातीय प्रत्यथी ाारा इस प्रकार िारी दकया गया ह,ै तानो भारत के राष्ट्रपजत ने जििािास्ट्पि जिषय-िस्ट्तु स े संबंद्ध तुद्दे पर जिचार कर जलया हो । त तीय प्रत्यथी, िो एक बाह्य व्यजि/भूतपूिवस जिधान सभा सिस्ट्य ह,ै ाारा फाइल क गई याजचका के आधार पर, ऐसी दकसी कारवसिाई का उि अजधजनयत के उपबंधों के अधीन सतथनवस नहीं दकया िा सकता ह ै । अत:, िह इस न्यायालय के सतक्ष अतं ररत व्यािेि के जलए याचना करता ह ै।” “3. ऐसी पररजस्ट्थजतयों त,ें प्रथत प्रत्यथी के आक्षेजपत नोरटस तारीख 04.09.2017 के और साथ ही जातीय प्रत्यथी के आिेि तारीख 04.09.2018 को तीन सप्ताह क अिजध के जलए प्रास्ट्थजगत रखा िाएगा ।” 12. तत्पश्चात,् ताननीय तद्रास उच्च न्यायालय ने अपन े आिेि तारीख 01.11.2018 के ाारा प्रत्यर्थवसयों को अपना प्रजत िपथपराल फाइल करन े का जनििे दिया था और ऊपर उजल्लजखत अतं ररत जनिेि को अगल े आिेि होन े तक जिस्ट्ताररत कर दिया था । इस तारीख से ही, तातला लंजबत बना हुआ ह ै और 2017 का जनिदेशि तातला स0ं 9(पी) के अधीन कायवसिाजहयों पर रोक िारी ह ै। 13. इसके पश्चात,् आयोग को, ताननीय तद्रास उच्च न्यायालय ाारा तारीख 15.12.2021 को दिए गए जनणवसय तारीख 23.11.2021 क प्रजत प्राप्त हुई थी, जिसके ाारा पूिोि तातला जनम्नजलजखत संप्रक्षे ण के साथ जनपटाया गया था :-- “2. याची क ओर से उपजस्ट्थत हुए जिाान काउंसेल ने यह जनिेिन दकया दक सतय के व्यतीत होने के कारण, उि पि को धारण करन े का कायवसकाल ही सताप्त हो गया था, और इसजलए, इस याजचका त ें क गई याचना जनष्‍टफल हो गई ह ै।” “3. िसू री ओर, जातीय प्रत्यथी/भारत जनिावसचन आयोग क ओर से उपजस्ट्थत हुए जिाान काउंसेल न े यह जनिेिन दकया दक भारत जनिावसचन आयोग न े नोरटस िारी दकया ह,ै जिसके पररणातस्ट्िरूप याची क पुड्डुचेरी जिधान सभा के सिस्ट्य के रूप त ें जनरहतवस ा ह,ै और उि नोरटस इस ररट याजचका त ें चनु ौती के अधीन ह,ै और यदि इस याजचका को बंि कर दिया िाता ह,ै तो, भारत जनिावसचन आयोग, आक्षेजपत नोरटस के अनुसरण त ें अगली कायवसिाजहयों के साथ अग्रसर होगा । अत:, आयोग यह जनिेिन करता ह ै दक याची यह जिजनश्चय करन े के जलए स्ट्ितंराल ह ैदक क्या िह इस ररट याजचका को िापस लेने के जलए इच्छुक ह ैया नहीं ।” “4. उपरोि को िज ष्टगत करत े हुए, इस न्यायालय का यह तत ह ै दक इस ररट याजचका त ें चुनौती दिए गए नोरटस के अनुसरण तें यह याची के जिरुद्ध आरंभ क गई अगली कायवसिाजहयों को, यदि कोई हो, चुनौती िेने के जलए याची को स्ट्ितंरालता प्रिान करत े हुए इस ररट याजचका को बंि करना ही पयावसप्त होगा ।” जिश्ल षे ण: 14. यह संप्रेक्षण करना संगत होगा दक िब ऊपर उजल्लजखत ररट याजचका ताननीय तद्रास उच्च न्यायालय के सतक्ष लंजबत थी, तब आयोग न े 06.04.2021 को होने िाले ततिान क तारीख िाले प्रेस नोट सं.ईसीआई/पीएन/16/2021 तारीख 26.02.2021 ाारा पड्ु डुचरे ी जिधान सभा के साधारण जनिावसचन क घोषणा क थी । पूिोक्त जनिावसचनों के पररणात 02.05.2021 को घोजषत दकए गए थे और पूिवस जिधान सभा, जिसके सिस्ट्य प्रत्यथी जिधान सभा सिस्ट्य थे, पुड्डुचरे ी के ताननीय उपराज्य पाल ाारा रािपराल अजधसूचना सं. XIV एलएएस/जिघटन/2021 तारीख 03.05.2021 ाारा जिघरटत कर िी गई थी ।6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] जनष्‍टक ष:वस 15. उपरोक्त को ध् यान त ें रखते हुए, जनिदेशि तारीख 04.09.2017 को संघ राज्य क्षेराल िासन अजधजनयत, 1963 क धारा 14(4) के अधीन आयोग के इस आिय क राय के साथ भारत के ताननीय राष्‍टर पजत को िापस लौटाया िाता ह ै दक जनिदेशि जनष्‍टफ ल हो गया ह ै। रािीि कुतार सिु ील चद्रं ा अनपू चद्रं ा पाडं े (जनिाचवस न आयक्ु त ) (तख्ु य जनिाचवस न आयक्ु त ) (जनिाचवस न आयक्ु त ) स्ट् थान : नई दिल्ल ी तारीख : 02.02.2022 [फा. सं. एच-11026/01/2022-जि.2] दििाकर वसंह, संयुि सजचि और जिधायी परातिी MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2022 S.O. 3364(E).—The following Order made by the President is published for general information:- ORDER New Delhi, the 20th July, 2022 Whereas, a petition was made by Sh. Om Sakthi Segar (hereinafter, “Petitioner”) on 12.07.2017 before the President of India, wherein the petitioner sought disqualification of the following 9 Members of the Legislative Assembly of Union territory of Puducherry, namely, Shri K. Lakshminarayanan, Shri. R.K.R. Anantharaman, Shri R. Siva, Smt. A. Geetha, Shri T. Djeamourthy, Shri M.N.R. Balan, Shri E. Theeppainthan, Smt. V. Vizeaveny and Shri N. Danavelou (hereinafter, “Respondents”) under Section 14(1)(a) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 on the ground of holding ‘Offices of Profit’. And whereas, the said Petition was referred to the Election Commission of India on 04.09.2017 seeking its opinion under section 14(4) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 on the alleged disqualification of the Respondents. And whereas, the Petitioner has stated that among the aforesaid 9 Respondents, Shri K. Lakshminarayanan and Shri R.K.R. Anantaraman held offices of profit under the Government which were not exempted from disqualification under the ‘Puducherry Members of the Legislative Assembly (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1994’ and were therefore liable to be disqualified under section 14(1)(a) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. And whereas, the Petitioner has further stated that rest of the 7 Respondent MLAs held offices of profit under the Government which were included in the schedule of exempted offices under the Puducherry Members of the Legislative Assembly (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1994, but to claim any exemption from disqualification, it was required that they were not in receipt of, or entitled to, any fee of remuneration, other than compensatory allowance as mandated under the proviso mentioned under the said schedule. The Petitioner alleged that these Respondents were in receipt of honorariums in addition to provisions for personal staffs as well as staff driven car and therefore, became liable for disqualification. And whereas, while the Election Commission of India was examining the issue of the said petition, Shri R.K.R. Anantharaman, MLA had filed a Writ Petition titled R.K.R. Anantharaman vs. The Secretary to the President of India & Ors. [WP No. 26967/2018] before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered the judgment on 23.11.2021 by which the aforesaid matter was disposed of with the following observation:-[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपराल : असाधारण 7 “2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, due to efflux of time, the tenure to hold the said post itself was over, and therefore, the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition has become infructuous.” “3. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Election Commission of India submits that, the Election Commission of India has issued notice, thereby disqualifying the petitioner as Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, and the said notice is under challenge in this Writ Petition, and if this Writ Pettion is closed, then, the Election Commission of India would proceed with the further proceedings, pursuant to the impugned notice. Therefore, he submits that, it is left open to the petitioner to decide whether he is inclined to withdraw this Writ Petition or not.” “4. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that, it would be suffice to close this Writ Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the further proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to the notice challenged in this writ petition.” And whereas, while the aforesaid writ petition was pending before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the Election Commission of India announced General Elections to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly vide Press Note No. ECI/PN/16/2021, dated 26.02.2021 with the date of poll being 06.04.2021. The results for the aforesaid election were announced on 02.05.2021 and the previous Legislative Assembly was dissolved by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Puduchery vide Gazette Notification No. XIV LAS/Dissolution/2021 dated 03.05.2021. And whereas, the Election Commission of India returned the aforesaid reference dated 04.09.2017 with their opinion on 02.02.2022, under section 14(4) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, to the effect that the same has become infructuous. Now, therefore, having considered the matter in the light of the opinion rendered by the Election Commission of India, I, Ram Nath Kovind, President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under section 14(4) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, do hereby hold that in view of the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, the Petition has become infructuous. 20th July, 2022 President of India ANNEXURE TO THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 REFERENCE CASE NO. 9(P) OF 2017 [REFERENCE FROM THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF UNION TERRITORIES ACT, 1963] In re: Reference Case No. 9(P) of 2017- Reference received from the Hon’ble President of India under Section 14(4) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 seeking opinion of the Election Commission of India on the question of alleged disqualification of 9 Members of Puducherry Legislative Assembly under Section 14(1)(a) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. OPINION 1. This is a reference dated 04.09.2017 received from the Hon’ble President of India seeking opinion of the Election Commission of India under Section 14(4) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, on the question whether the following 9 Members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly have become subject to disqualification under Section 14(1)(a) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963: -8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Sl. No. Name Constituency Office Held 1. K. Lakshminarayanan 14- Rajbhavan Parliamentary Secretary to Chief Minister 2. R.K.R. Anantaraman 20- Manavely Government Whip 3. R. Siva 16- Orleanpath Chairman, Puducherry Industrial Promotion Development and Investment Corporation 4. A. Geetha 28- Neravy T.R. Chairman, Power Corporation Pattinam 5. T. Jayamoorthy 19- Ariyankuppam Chairman, Puducherry Planning Authority 6. M.N.R. Balan 06- Ozhukarai Chairman, Puducherry Tourism Development Corporation 7. E. Theepanjam 03- Oussoudu Chairman, Slum Clearance Board 8. N. Vijayaveny 22- Nettapakkam Chairman, Puducherry Distilleries Limited 9. N. Dhanavelu 23- Bahour Chairman, Puducherry Agriculture Products and Civil Supplies Corporation 2. In the said reference, the question of disqualification arose out of a petition dated 12.07.2017 submitted by Sh. Om Sakthi Segar (hereinafter, “Petitioner”), before the Hon’ble President of India wherein the Petitioner sought disqualification of the aforesaid Members of Puducherry Legislative Assembly (hereinafter, “Respondents”), under Section 14(1)(a) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 on grounds of holding ‘Offices of Profit’. FACTS: 3. The Petitioner has stated that among the aforesaid 9 Respondents, K. Lakshminarayanan and R.K.R. Anantharaman held offices of profit under the Government which were not exempted from disqualification under the ‘Puducherry Members of the Legislative Assembly (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1994’ and were therefore liable to be disqualified under Section 14(1)(a) of the Government of Union Territory Act, 1963. The Petitioner further stated that the rest of the 7 Respondent MLAs held offices of profit under the Government which were included in the schedule of exempted offices under the Puducherry Members of the Legislative Assembly (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1994, but to claim any exemption from disqualification, it was required that they were not in receipt of, or entitled to, any fee of remuneration, other than compensatory allowance as mandated under the proviso mentioned under the said schedule. The Petitioner alleged that these Respondents were in receipt of honorariums in addition to provisions for personal staffs as well as staff driven car and therefore, became liable for disqualification. 4. On 13.12.2017, the Commission issued a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry enclosed with a copy of the aforesaid petition and requested the said authority to provide certain factual information regarding the offices held by the Respondents. 5. The Commission received a letter dated 23.02.2018 from Sh. M. Kannan, Under Secretary to the Government of Puducherry in compliance of the Commission’s letter dated 13.12.2017. The State Government vide this letter informed the Commission that the post of Parliamentary Secretary and that of Chairman/ Chairperson of Autonomous Bodies/ Corporations, etc have been exempted from disqualification as per the Parliamentary Secretary (Payment of Special Allowance and Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1971 and Puducherry Members of the Legislative Assembly (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1994 respectively. Moreover, it was mentioned that the post of Chairman, Slum Clearance Board was exempted from disqualification under the provisions of Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) (Puducherry Amendment) Act 1986. Furthermore, it was stated that the post of Government Whip, held by Sh. R.K.R. Anantharaman, was not exempted from disqualification under any statutory provision. 6. As the only position not exempted from disqualification was that of the Government Whip, the Commission issued another letter dated 21.03.2018 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry in order to gather relevant information about the said position, such as the authority responsible for appointment to this position, copy of appointment order and details of benefits attached with the same, in order to formulate its opinion.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपराल : असाधारण 9 7. The Government of Puducherry vide letter dated 27.06.2018 furnished its reply in compliance to the Commission’s letter dated 21.03.2018 wherein it was stated that the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Puducherry vide I.D. Note No. H.12035/1/2016/DPAR/CCD(1) dated 22.05.2018 had ordered that the appointment of Sh. R. Siva, Sh. M.N.R. Balan, Smt. A. Geetha, Sh. V. Vizeaveny and Sh. N. Danavelou as Chairmen/ Chairpersons of their respective corporations (as mentioned in table under Paragraph 1) had been revised and that they were henceforth appointed as non-official Chairmen/ Chairpersons of the said corporations, who were to function in accordance with the Articles of Associations/ Memorandum of Association / Acts of the respective corporation. However, the detail sought by the Commission regarding the position of Government Whip was not provided with the said reply. 8. The Commission vide letter dated 27.06.2018 also sought a written response/ submission from Sh. R.K.R. Anantharaman with regard to the prayer for his disqualification as made in the petition. 9. In response to Commission’s letter dated 27.06.2018, Sh. R.K.R. Anantharaman furnished his reply vide letter dated 12.07.2018 wherein it was submitted that the appointment of Government Whip had no statutory backing and in the absence of any privilege and special allowance, the Government Whip does not attract disqualification on grounds of office of profit. It was further submitted that he was drawing salary and allowances only for being a Member of Legislative Assembly of Puducherry and that he was not in receipt of any remuneration for holding the position of Government Whip. Moreover, it was submitted that the post of ‘whip’ is a misnomer and that no such post is created either by law or notification in the Union Territory of Puducherry. In view of these facts, Sh. R.K.R. Anantharaman prayed that the reference may be returned to the Hon’ble President of India for resubmission with prescribed legal requirements as contemplated under the Government of Union Territory Act, 1963 and Rules of Business of Puducherry Legislative Assembly. 10. The Commission, not satisfied with the aforesaid response, issued a notice dated 04.09.2018 to Sh. R.K.R. Anantharaman wherein he was directed to file a written statement on or before 20.09.2018 and appear before the Commission, either in person or through a legal representative, on 27.09.2018. On 20.09.2018, a letter was received from Sh. R.K.R. Anantharaman requesting to postpone the scheduled hearing which was to be held on 27.09.2018. The Commission accepted the above-mentioned request and postponed the hearing to 12.10.2018. 11. On 11.10.2018, a letter was received from the legal representatives of Sh. R.K.R. Anantharaman informing the Commission that the said MLA had filed a Writ Petition titled R.K.R. Anantharaman vs. The Secretary to the President of India & Ors. [WP No. 26967/2018] before the Hon’ble Madras High Court wherein the Commission was arrayed as Respondent No. 2. It was further stated that the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.10.2018 had granted a stay on the operation of all proceedings under reference dated 04.09.2017 made by the Hon’ble President of India to the Commission as well as Commission’s notice dated 04.09.2018. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced here below for ease of reference: - “2. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, despite the letter dated 04.09.2017 by the first respondent, seeking an opinion under Section 14(3) & (4) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, from the Election Commission of India, which in turn by communication dated 27.06.2018, directed for submission of response pursuant to the reference dated 13.07.2018, now, the impugned notice dated 04.09.2018, under Reference Case No. 9(P) of 2017, came to be issued by the second respondent as if the President of India has considered the issue related to the subject matter in dispute. Such an action on the basis of petition filed by the third respondent who is an outsider/ former MLA, cannot be countenanced under the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, he prays for an interim injunction before this Court.” “3. Under such circumstances, the impugned notice dated 04.09.2017, of the first respondent as well as the order of the second respondent dated 04.09.2018, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks.” 12. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Madras High Court vide order dated 01.11.2018 directed the Respondents to file their counter affidavit and extended the above-mentioned interim direction until further orders. Since this date, the matter remained pending and the stay on the proceedings under Reference Case No. 9(P) of 2017 continued.10 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 13. Subsequently, the Commission received a copy of the judgment dated 23.11.2021 delivered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court on 15.12.2021 by which the aforesaid matter was disposed of with the following observations: - “2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, due to efflux of time, the tenure to hold the said post itself was over, and therefore, the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition has become infructuous.” “3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/ Election Commission of India submits that, the Election Commission of India has issued notice, thereby, disqualifying the petitioner as Member of the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, and the said notice is under challenge in this Writ Petition, and if this Writ Petition is closed, then, the Election Commission of India would proceed with the further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice. Therefore, he submits that, it is left open to the petitioner to decide whether he is inclined to withdraw this Writ Petition or not.” “4. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that, it would be suffice to close this Writ Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the further proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to the notice challenged in this writ petition.” ANALYSIS: 14. It is pertinent to observe that while the above-mentioned writ petition was pending before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the Commission announced General Elections to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly vide Press Note No. ECI/PN/ 16/2021 dated 26.02.2021 with the date of poll being 06.04.2021. The results for the aforesaid elections were announced on 02.05.2021 and the previous Legislative Assembly, of which the Respondent MLAs were members, was dissolved by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Puducherry vide Gazette Notification No. XIV LAS/Dissolution/2021 dated 03.05.2021. CONCLUSION: 15. In view of the above, the reference dated 04.09.2017 is hereby returned to the Hon’ble President of India with the Commission’s opinion, under Section 14(4) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, to the effect that the same has become infructuous. RAJIV KUMAR SUSHIL CHANDRA ANUP CHANDRA PANDEY (ELECTION COMMISSIONER) (CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER) (ELECTION COMMISSIONER) PLACE: New Delhi DATE: 02.02.2022. [F. No. H-11026/01/2022-Leg.II] DIWAKAR SINGH, Jt. Secy. & Legislative Counsel Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

Continue your research

Related Documents from Ministry of Law and Justice