Manjit Singh Sethi vs Maharashtra Assembly, 2006 Mh Lj -6-849

Manjit Singh Sethi vs Maharashtra Assembly, 2006 Mh Lj -6-849

Coram :  S. Radhakrishna, V. M Kanade, S.B.Deshmukh 

     The present petition has been filed seeking a writ of Habeas Personal engine Bay detention arising out of an order dated 11th 12th April 2006 passed by the state legislative assembly Maharashtra state Mumbai avoiding a punishment of detention for 90 days to the petitioner for the bridge of privilege of the state legislative assembly.

The facts which are relevant to decide this edition are as follows :-

The petitioner, the president of fight for right bar owners Association, Mumbai had attended a meeting organised by the dance bar girls Association. Thereafter a new item appeared in the Daily 'Sakal' Under a caption "wives of the Minister's shall not be allowed to move on the Streets",  which claimed that the petitioner had made the above statement statement and had abused the Deputy Chief Minister of state, Shri. R.R. Patil. The petitioner was thereafter sentenced to undergo 90 days imprisonment on account of breach of privilege of the house after an enquiry by and order dated 11th /12th April , 2006 . The petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition against this impugned order, Being criminal writ petition No.873 of 2006 in this Court on 15th April 2006 on 21st June 2006 ,the learned Division bench of Shri D G Deshpande, and Shri S.A.Bobde,  had directed that this matter be placed before the chief justice for Constituting a larger bench. The matter was finally heard by a full Bench on 28 - 6 - 2006. By an order dated 4 July 2006, the full bench had dismissed the said writ on the grounds that the court can't interfere  with the order passed by the House, while exercising its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of the India,  as the House had given a
fair opportunity of hearing through its privilege committee, and that as there was privilege, with regard to which the house was competent to the take action.

      Being aggregated by the very same order dated 11th /12 April 2006 the petitioner  has again preferred this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Habeas Corpus on Grounds which were not urged in the earlier petition. A preliminary objection was raised, as to the maintability of a second  petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus.

     The senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Jethmalani, contented that the instant writ petition was not a second petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus.He referred various judgements.

Mr. Rafique Dada learned senior counsel appeared as Amicus Curie and addressed the issue of maintability of the subsequent petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and cited several judicial decisions that have laid down the position of law as regards to the preliminary objection as to maintability of the present petition being a second partition for a writ of Habeas Corpus.

                     The learned Amicus Curie addressed the issue raised by Mr. Jeth Malani, who contented that a fresh cause of action arose on 3rd July 2006. The 1st with petition challenged the conviction and the detention order , The present case , going by the words of petition,  challenge the detention after the prorogation of the Legislative Assembly. The detention is, in fact a consequence of the detention order and the fliw from it. It was strongly contented that execution of an order does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. Challenging the execution of consequences of an order would be in effect petitioning against the order itself,  which has been challenged earlier. This would not in any sense fit into the category of a fresh ground or cause of action for which a Second writ petition could be filed.

       The court uphold the preliminary objection that the present second petition is not maintainable. Hence rules stands discharged.

    The learned Council for both the parties had also argued with regard to legality or otherwise of the deferred detention. Even after prorogation of the house. The Court held that it is not going into the same, as the court is of clear view that no second writ  petition would lie. Court has deeply appreciated for the able assistance rendered by Mr. R.A. Dada as an amicus Curie.