(Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Shobhha De ________________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Chairman, Maharashtra Legislature Secretariat & Ors. ___ Respondent(s)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 233 of 2015, decided on December 11, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. This Court on 14.10.2015 had passed the following order:
“Heard Mr. C. A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the General petitioner, appearing and for Mr. the Mukul State Rohtagi, of learned Maharashtra Attorney along with Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra.
To put the controversy at rest, we require the petitioner to file a reply before the 1st Respondent stating that whatever she had stated, has remotely nothing to do with the conduct of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly. The said reply shall be filed within a fortnight hence.
Needless to say, filing of such a reply is without prejudice to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. The matter be listed for further hearing on 18.11.2015. We may hasten to clarify that by order dated 28.04.2015, we had passed an interim order which reads as under:-
“Issue notice, returnable within eight weeks. As an interim measure, it is directed that there shall be stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the Notice issued on 10th April, 2015, by the Deputy Secretary (Law), Maharashtra
Legislature Secretariat, Mumbai.”
Our direction today to file the reply modifies the interim order to that extent. We hope and trust that the competent authority would objectively appreciate the reply and may accept it.
Put up for further hearing on 18.11.2015.”
2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a representation to the competent authority on 26.10.2015. Learned counsel for the parties submit that pursuant to the said representation, an order has been passed by the competent authority on 20.11.2015. English translation of the said order reads as follows:
“From
The Chief Secretary Secretariat, Legislative Assembly, Maharashtra,
To
Shri Pratap Sarnaik
Sub-The notice for breach of privilege motion moved by you against Ms. Shobhaa De on 8th April 2015.
Dear Sir,
After taking into consideration the constitutional provisions and precedents set by the parliamentary procedures about breach of privilege motion in entirety.
Hon. chairman, Legislative Assembly, Government of Maharashtra has rejected the notice for breach of privilege motion moved by you against Ms. Shobhaa De.
Yours sincerely,
Ashok Mohite,
Asst. Secretary (I)
Legislative Assembly, Government of Maharashtra CC. Shrimati Shobhaa De, 51A Market Tower, G.D. Somani Marg, Mumbai.”
3. In view of the aforesaid, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
———
