Full Text
$-34 & 35 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)7272/2019
ANIL KUMAR BAJPAI Petitioner
Through MrPurushaindra Kaurav,Senior Advocate with Mr Neeraj,Mr Himanshu Pathak, Mr Satya Ranjan Swain,MsPiyush Beriwal, Mr Sahaj Garg,Mr Sushil Kr Garg,Advocates,
Through Mr Manish Vashisht,Mr Sameer Vashisht,ASC,Civil,GNCTD with Mr
Manashwy Jha, Ms Urvi Kapoor,Advocates for Rl.
Mr R.A.Iyer,Advocate for R2.
COL.DEVENDER KUMAR SEHRAWAT Petitioner
Through Mr Chetan ShaiTna,Senior Advocate with Mr Neeraj,MrHimanshu Pathak, Mr Satya Ranjan Swain,MsPiyush Beriwal, Mr Sahaj Garg,Mr SushilKr Garg,Advocates
Through Mr SudhirNandrajog,Senior Advocate with Mr Sameer Vashisht,ASC,Civil,GNCTD with Mr Manashwy Jha,Ms Urvi Kapoor, Advocates for Rl.
Mr R.A.Iyer,Advocatefor R2.
0/„ 08.07.2019
2019:DHC:7532
ORDER
1. Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
2. The application are disposed of. W.P.(a 7272/2019& CM APPL.30263/2019,30265/2019 W.P.(a 7273/2019& CM APPL.30266/2019,30300/2019
3. The petitioners have filed the present petitions,inter alia,praying that directions be passed for removing respondent no.l from the anti-defeetion proceedings. The petitioners also pray that the respondent be directed to appoint a committee for the adjudication ofthe anti-defeetion proceedings initiated againstthe petitioners.
4. The petitioners, essentially, seek to challenge the jurisdiction of respondent no.l. Speaker ofthe Delhi Legislative Assembly, to adjudicate the petition submitted by respondent no. 2, seeking their disqualification from the membership of the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi. It is contended that respondent no.l is biased as he has a strong affiliation to the political party, Aam Aadmi Party, and, therefore, is not in a position to adjudicate the proceedings in an impartial and unbiased manner. The petitioners have raised a similar objection before respondentno.l.However, respondent no.l has called upon the petitioners to submittheir responses on merits,as well.
5. Mr Chetan Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners,contended thatrespondentno.1 wasboundto firstadjudicatethe objection ofbiasraised bythe petitioners,before proceeding further.
6. After the arguments were heard at length. Colonel Devender Kumar Sehrawat, the petitioner in W.P.(C)7273/2019, also sought permission to address arguments by discharging his Counsel. Although, this Court does not appreciate this conduct, nonetheless, this Court also heard Colonel DevenderKumar Sehrawat.He also reiterated the contention thatrespondent no. 1 is required to pass an order deciding the preliminary objection as to his jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition,before proceeding further.
7. This Courtfinds the aforesaid contention bereft ofany merit. There is no requirement for respondent no.l to decide the controversy piecemeal. This Court finds no fault in the procedure adopted by respondent no. 1 in calling upon the petitioners to file comprehensive responses to the petition submitted by respondent no.2.
8. In view ofthe above,the present petitions are dismissed. Needless to state thatrespondent no. 1 would address all contentions as advanced by the petitioners. All rights and contentions of the petitioners to subsequently challenge any order that may be passed by respondent no. 1, are also reserved.
9. All pending applications are also disposed of.
10. Atthis stage.Col Sehrawatrequests that atleasttwo days further time be granted to the petitioners to file a comprehensive response.
11. Mr Nandrajog,leamed Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.l states that there would be no difficulty in acceding to the request made by the petitioners. The said statement is taken on record. VIBHUBAKHRU,J JULY 08,2019 pkv