k.s.ravichandran - images.assettype.comimages.assettype.com/.../2017/09/ravichandran-ks-wp... ·...

1

Page No: Corrns:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. / 2017

K.S.Ravichandran Member of Legislative Assembly, Egmore Constituency, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 .. Petitioner

-Vs- 1. The Speaker, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Secretary, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 3. Privileges Committee, rep. By its Chairman, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 4. Mr. V Jayaraman, Chairman, Privileges Committee, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 .. Respondents

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER

I, K.S.Ravichandran son of P.K.Sanganathan, Indian, aged

about 45 years, residing at New No. 13/1, Old No.21/1, Subba

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

2

Page No: Corrns:

Naidu Street, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112 do hereby sincerely state

on Oath as follows:

1. I am the Petitioner in this writ Petition; I am a Member of

Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly belonging to Dravida Munnetra

Kazhagam, elected from Egmore Assembly Constituency and as

such I am well acquainted with the facts of this case.

2. I submit that consistent with actions taken by several

other states, Tamil Nadu on 8th May 2013 announced a ban on

manufacture and sale of Gutka and Paan masala.

3. I submit that manufacture, storage, sale and distribution

of Gutka in the State of Tamil Nadu was first prohibited in 2013 and

has been extended each year. I further submit that Regulation 2.3.4

of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on

Sales) Regulations, 2011 already prohibits addition of tobacco and

nicotine as ingredients in any food products.

4. I submit that manufacture, storage, sale and distribution

of Gutka in the state of Tamil Nadu was most recently prohibited by

the Commissioner of Food Safety for a period of one year,vide

notification, with effect from 23rd March, 2017 under Section

30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act.


3

Page No: Corrns:

5. I submit that even after these extensive Central and

State Regulations prohibiting manufacture and sale of Gutka, the

sale of Gutka continued with impunity because of rampant

corruption involving Cabinet Ministers and top police officials in the

State.

6. I submit that rampant corruption was revealed when

Income Tax raids were carried out on 8th July, 2016 at the godown,

offices, and residences of Gutka and Paan Masala Manufacturer Mr.

Madhava Rao of the MDM brand. I further submit that it is alleged

that Mr. Madhava Rao had evaded tax to the tune of Rs. 250 Crore.

7. I submit that during one of these raids, a diary containing

the names, amounts of bribe paid and other details were found to

be in the possession of Mr. Madhava Rao and seized. I further

submit that according to reports in various news dailies, it has been

alleged that Rs. 40 Crores was paid to the Health Minister and

various officials to facilitate the sale of Gutka and Paan masala in

Chennai.

8. I submit that according to reports in various news dailies,

amounts ranging from Rs 5 lakhs to Rs 60 lakhs were allegedly paid


4

Page No: Corrns:

as bribe to senior police officials which included the then Police

Commissioner of Chennai, the then Joint Commissioner of Police,

Chennai and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai. It is

further submitted that according to these reports, bribes were also

paid to several officials from Health and Food Safety Departments

and local councilors.

9. I submit that according to reports in various news dailies,

there were approximately 30,000 Gutka traders in Chennai before

the ban. Post banning of Gutka in 2013, there has been a seizure of

119 tonnes of Gutka. However, despite the ban, Gutka is being sold

openly and is readily available in the state.

10. I submit that in light of the above circumstances, the

Union Ministry of Home Affairs called for a report on the Gutka scam

from the Government of Tamil Nadu. The scam was probed by the

Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, falling under the aegis

of the Director General of Police, at the relevant time being Mr.

Rajendran, who was also later implicated in the scam.

11. I submit that as a legislator and a concerned citizen, it is

my responsibility to hold the Government accountable for their role

in the Gutka scam.


5

Page No: Corrns:

12. I submit that the Leader of the Opposition requested the

indulgence of Respondent No.1 on two occasions i.e. on 28th June

2017 and 3rd July 2017, however Respondent No.1 denied

permission to raise the issue on both these occasions.

13. I submit that on 8th July 2017, during the debate on

Appropriation Bill, Respondent No. 1 finally allowed the Leader of

the Opposition to raise the issue in the House. I further submit that,

in the course of his speech on 19th July 2017, to highlight the

flagrant violation of the ban on Gutka and to substantiate our

allegations made in his earlier speech on 8th July, 2017, the Leader

of the Opposition and other DMK members of the Assembly

exhibited packets of Gutka as evidence that it was still easily

available in the market despite the State Government having

banned it about four years ago. The abovesaid act was done with a

view to draw attention to the fact that a banned substance is being

sold and distributed openly. The act of displaying the Gutka packets

was, therefore, in public interest and good faith to highlight the

larger issue involved. The exhibition of Gutka packets had close

nexus and proximity with the issue which was being raised in the

House.

14. I submit that the 1st respondent then proceeded to

unilaterally refer the matter to the Privileges Committee of the


6

Page No: Corrns:

House on 19.07.2017 against me and other legislators of the

Opposition Party (DMK), without giving the Petitioner an opportunity

to address the House on the allegation of breach of privilege.

15. I submit that the Respondent No. 3 Privileges Committee

took no action on this issue for almost 40 days until 19 Members of

T.T.V. Dinakaran Group expressed their lack of confidence in the

present Chief Minister on 22nd August 2017 and having regard to

the fact that Government has lost its majority on that day, the

Principal Opposition Party submitted a letter to the Governor

requesting him to direct a Floor Test.

16. I submit that, pursuant to the 1st respondent’s referral,

the 3rd Respondent Privileges Committee met on 28th August 2017

and issued show cause notice on me and 20 other legislators. Even

the said show cause notice does not set out how the matter referred

to pertains to privileges of the House and fails to disclose the basis

on which the Privileges Committee has assumed jurisdiction.

17. I submit that the timing for issuance of such show cause

notice is not innocuous or coincidental, and the sole motive for

taking action appears to be to prevent the Petitioner from exercising

his legal and constitutional right to vote at the Floor Test that is

likely to be conducted in the Legislative Assembly. I submit that the

malafides is writ large as preventing the petitioner and other


7

Page No: Corrns:

legislators belonging to the principal opposition party (to whom

notices have been issued by the 3rdRespondent Privileges

Committee) would assist the existing minority Government in

seeking to prove a majority in a floor test.

18. I am advised to submit that when proceedings initiated

by the Hon’ble Speaker are without jurisdiction, tainted with gross

illegality, involve violation of principles of natural justice or

fundamental rights, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to inquire

into the same and exercise its powers of judicial review.

19. I am advised to submit that in Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble

Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184 (para 431) the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that an action under Article 194 of the

Constitution of India is amenable to judicial review and noted as

under:-

“Summary of the principles relating to parameters of judicial

review in relation to exercise of parliamentary provisions

431. We may summarise the principles that can be culled out

from the above discussion. They are:

………

(h) The judicature is not prevented from scrutinising the

validity of the action of the legislature trespassing on the

fundamental rights conferred on the citizens;

……..


8

Page No: Corrns:

(l) The manner of enforcement of privilege by the legislature

can result in judicial scrutiny, though subject to the restrictions

contained in the other constitutional provisions, for example

Article 122 or 212;

……..

(p) Ordinarily, the legislature, as a body, cannot be accused of

having acted for an extraneous purpose or being actuated by

caprice or mala fide intention, and the court will not lightly

presume abuse or misuse, giving allowance for the fact that

the legislature is the best judge of such matters, but if in a

given case, the allegations to such effect are made, the court

may examine the validity of the said contention, the onus on

the person alleging being extremely heavy;

.............

(s) The proceedings which may be tainted on account of

substantive or gross illegality or unconstitutionality are not

protected from judicial scrutiny;

..........

(u) An ouster clause attaching finality to a determination does

ordinarily oust the power of the court to review the decision

but not on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or it being a nullity

for some reason such as gross illegality, irrationality, violation

of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with

rules of natural justice and perversity.”

20. I am advised to submit that In Alagaapuram R Mohanraj

v Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly reported in (2016) 6 SCC

82, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:


9

Page No: Corrns:

33. We now deal with the submissions of the petitioners

that the impugned proceedings are violative of the

fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 14.

According to the petitioners, the said proceedings have

been taken in violation of the principles of natural justice.

It is settled law that the scope of judicial review in

matters relating to action taken against members by the

legislative bodies is limited. However, it is likewise well

settled that the non-compliance with the principles of

natural justice is one of the limited grounds on which

judicial review could be undertaken against the internal

proceedings of the legislative bodies in appropriate cases.

[Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 11 SCC 1“14. …

We may hasten to add that howsoever limited may be the

field of judicial review, the principles of natural justice

have to be complied with and in their absence, the orders

would stand vitiated.” (SCC p. 15, para 14)See also paras

671 and 672 of Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC

184.]

21. I am further advised to submit that In S

Balasubramanian v State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1994) SCC

OnLine Mad 370, a Full Bench of this Hon‘ble Court held:


10

Page No: Corrns:

20. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the

learned counsel appearing on either side in the light of the

principles laid down in the above decisions, we propose to take

up first for consideration the question as to the scope and

extent of interference by Courts exercising jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters of the nature

concerning the legality, propriety and constitutionality of the

action taken in the purported exercise of the privileges of the

House of legislature engrafted in Article 194(3) of the

Constitution of India. It is by now well settled and there could

be no serious controversy over the position reiterated by more

than one decision of the Supreme Court that the Constitution

reigns supreme and the rights, powers and privileges of the

various limbs of the State are subject to the provisions

contained in the Constitution, the basic and fundamental law

which provides for the governance of the State. It is equally

well settled that the final authority to state the meaning of the

Constitution and to settle constitutional controversies

exclusively belongs to the Supreme Court and the High Courts

which are constituted as the sentinels of both the Constitution

and democracy, as well as the fundamental rights of the

citizen - inclusive of their life, liberty and freedom. That apart,

the Legislatures in India have to function within the limits

prescribed by the material and relevant provisions of the

Constitution of India and adjudication of any dispute as to


11

Page No: Corrns:

whether legislative authority has been exceeded or

fundamental rights have been contravened is solely and

exclusively left to the Judicature of this country and, therefore,

inevitably the decision about the construction of Article 194(3)

of the Constitution, the privileges, powers and immunities

claimed or action taken in vindication thereof cannot be said to

be in the exclusive domain or of the sole arbitral or absolute

discretion of the House of Legislature. Of course, the Courts

having regard to their own self imposed limits would honour

the sentiments particularly keeping in view the plenary powers

of the Legislature within the constitutionally permitted limits so

long as such action of the Legislature does not result in the

negation of the fundamental rights secured under the

Constitution or the life, liberty, freedom and dignity of the

citizen. The all powerful postures or claims of sky-high powers

or suzerain claims of sovereignty or over-Lordism are to be

brushed aside as nothing but fossils of the tyrannical and

anarchical past and not keeping in tune with the basic and

fundamental principle of rule of law, the bedrock of the

Constitution or the democratic ideals which are the avowed

object of the Republic ushered in by the Constitution of India.

The contentions to the contrary have no basis or recognition of

law and do not have the merit of acceptance by courts in this

country.


12

Page No: Corrns:

22. I am advised to submit that the very initiation of the

impugned proceedings being tainted with lack of jurisdiction,

malafides and illegality, the suo moto reference as well as the notice

issued to me deserve to be quashed, as subjecting me to such

proceedings would be wholly arbitrary and violative of the

constitutional and fundamental rights of the Petitioner.

23. I submit that in the above circumstances, I am constrained

to approach this Hon’ble Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying to issue a Writ of Certioarari, as prayed for on the

following among other

GROUNDS

a) It is submitted that the sole ground for impugned suo-moto

reference by the Respondent No 1 and issuance of impugned notice

by Privilege Committee is that a prohibited item (Gutka) has been

brought inside the House and exhibited during the debate. The said

premise is, on face of it, wrong as the possession of Gutka in the

Assembly or at any place is not prohibited either by the Rules or by

any Law. Even the Government order, by which Gutka ban is

imposed, only prohibits manufacture, storage, distribution and sale

of Gutka. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the

Respondents to initiate the privilege proceedings is itself bad in law

and without jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside.


13

Page No: Corrns:

b) It is submitted that in the instant case, the matter alluded

to, does not in any manner constitute breach of privilege and also

does not obstruct or bring disrepute to the House in any manner.

This is evident from fact that the notice issued to the Petitioner itself

does not specify as to how the impugned act constitutes a breach of

privilege. Under such circumstances the reference to Privileges

Committee, issuance of notice by it and further proceedings are

completely without jurisdiction and are tainted on account of

substantive and gross illegality.

c) It is submitted that exhibiting of an item in furtherance of

raising an issue by member can in no manner be treated as breach

of privilege, because it is in furtherance of freedom of speech. It is

an extension of freedom of speech. Therefore, referring the matter

to Privileges Committee on 19.7.2017 and issuance of notice dated

28.08.2017 by the Privilege Committee is completely without

jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside.

d) Article 194 protects freedom of speech within the

Legislature, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, rules and

standing orders regulating the procedure of the Legislature. In the

absence of any provision in the rules of the Legislature prohibiting

the Members from exhibiting items (including Gutka packets), the

right of a Member to address the House on an issue of public

importance in this manner cannot be curtailed.


14

Page No: Corrns:

e) It is submitted that exhibiting Gutkapackets was a means of

highlighting the falsity of Government’s claims that no Gutkawas

being sold in the State and therefore, even prima-facie holding that

exhibiting Gutka during debate is breach of privilege is perverse.

f) It is submitted that it is the constitutional duty of the

petitioner and other Members of the House, to raise important

issues such as in this case, where the Petitioner sought to raise an

imminent concern relating to public health. It is precisely for this

reason that freedom of speech of members in the House is

protected. Accordingly, suo moto reference by the Respondent No. 1

to the Privileges Committee as well as issuance of notice to the

Petitioner is entirely without jurisdiction and arbitrary.

g) It is submitted that possession of Gutka in the Assembly is

not prohibited either by the Legislative Assembly Rules or even by

any other Law. The Government order only prohibits manufacture,

storage, distribution and sale of Gutka. In the instant case, none of

these activities have been carried out and, therefore, assumption of

jurisdiction to initiate breach of privilege proceedings and reference

of the matter to Privileges Committee, on the basis that bringing

and exhibiting Gutkaamounts to breach of privilege is clearly bad in

law.

h) It is submitted that in the case of Rajaram Pal Vs Hon’ble

Speaker, Lok Sabha reported (2007) 3 SCC 184 Para 431 sub-para

(l), a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that


15

Page No: Corrns:

enforcement of privilege by the Legislature is subject to judicial

review. In the instant case, the Petitioner is invoking the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to demonstrate that initiation of

proceedings in the instant case is firstly, without jurisdiction,

secondly, in complete contravention of principles of natural justice

and thirdly, actuated by malafides and therefore, same are liable to

be quashed.

i) It is submitted as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme

Court, any action/ decision of Legislature is liable to be subject to

judicial review on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or it being a nullity

for some reason such as gross illegality, irrationality, violation of

constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of

natural justice and perversity.

j) It is submitted that impugned notice is vague and perverse,

in as much as, it does not throw any light on the privilege of the

House that is alleged to have been breached.

k) It is submitted that it is trite law that a constitutional court

is competent to review the action of the Respondents and strike

down the same if such action is in contravention of principles of

natural justice. The present notice while seeking to exclude the

petitioner from discussing the matter with with any other person

falls in this category and it also takes away the right of legal

assistance [2013 (1) CTC 774].


16

Page No: Corrns:

l) It is submitted that, by not giving the Petitioner an

opportunity to address the House as per Rule 223 of the Tamil Nadu

Legislative Assembly Rules, it is a clear contravention of Audi

Alteram Partem and therefore, liable to be struck down.

m) It is submitted that the alleged breach of privilege was

committed on 19.07.2017. However, the show cause notice was

sent to me and the other 20 MLA’s on 28.08.2017. The facts

demonstrate that the entire proceedings are actuated by malafides,

and are motivated to prevent me from participating in the

proceedings of the Assembly at the time when a Trust Vote, with

respect to the present Government takes place. The malafides in

issuance of the said notice is evident from the fact that the said

show cause notice was issued after a gap of 40 days only after 19

MLAs, who used to support the Government, had written a letter

expressing no confidence in the present Chief Minister and followed

by the letter of DMK to the Hon’ble Governor regarding loss of

confidence of the present government and demand for Floor Test. It

is to be noted that there are 233 members in the Tamil Nadu

Legislative Assembly; DMK and their allies have 98 seats. Therefore

the present Chief Minister and the Government does not enjoy

confidence of the house. Request for Floor Test was made by all the

opposition parties in the State from third week of August and hence

conducting of floor test in the assembly has become imminent. Only


17

Page No: Corrns:

in this backdrop the present notice was issued on 28th August 2017

by the Second Respondent.

n) It is submitted that initiation of the impugned proceedings

without any basis violates the legal and constitutional right of the

petitioner to vote at the Floor Test that is likely to be conducted in

the Legislative Assembly.

o) It is submitted that when breach of privilege by a member

of the House is raised, the 1st respondent, before referring the

matter to the Privileges Committee, must abide by the following

Rules of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules reproduced

below for ready reference

Committee of Privileges

Rule 219: Raising of a question of privilege

A member may, with the consent of the Speaker, raise a

question involving a breach of privilege, either of a Member or of

the House or of a Committee thereof.

Rule 220: Notice of the matter proposed to be raised

Notice of a motion to raise a question of privilege together with

a brief statement shall be given at least one hour before the

commencement of the sitting on the day on which the question is


18

Page No: Corrns:

proposed to be raised to (i) the Speaker (ii) the Secretary and (iii)

the Leader of the House. If the question raised is based on a

document, the notice shall be accompanied by the document:

Provided that the notice intended for the Leader of the House

may be handed over to the Secretary for being forwarded to the

Leader of the House:

Provided further that if it is against any other Member of the

House (including a Minister) a copy of such notice shall be given to

him through the Legislative Assembly Secretariat:

Provided further that in respect of a matter of privilege arising

during the sitting of the House the Speaker may waive such notice

and deal with the matter as he deems fit.

Rule 221: Time of raising

On the Speaker giving his consent to raise a question of

privilege it must be raised after the questions and before the list of

business for the day is entered upon:

Provided that a question of privilege arising during the sitting

of the House shall be entitled to immediate precedence over all

other business.

Rule 222: Conditions for admissibility


19

Page No: Corrns:

The right to raise a question of privilege shall be governed by

the following conditions, namely:—

(1) The question shall be restricted to a specific matter of

recent occurrence;

(2) The matter, in the opinion of the Speaker requires the

intervention of the House.

If these conditions are satisfied the Speaker may give his

consent under rule 219.

Rule 223: Raising the matter after consent

The Speaker if he gives his consent under Rule 219 and holds

that the matter proposed to be discussed warrants intervention of

the House he may at his discretion call the Member concerned to

make a short statement relevant thereto:

Provided that in a fit case before deciding whether the matter

warrants intervention of the House, he may give an opportunity to

the Member to explain briefly why the matter requires the

intervention of the House:

Provided further the Speaker may give an opportunity to the

Member against whom the matter is sought to be raised to briefly

explain his case.

Rule 224: Refusal for consent


20

Page No: Corrns:

The Speaker, if he refuses consent or is of opinion that the

matter does not warrant cognizance by the House, the same shall

be communicated to the Member concerned and that the matter

shall not be raised in the House in any form thereafter.

Rule 225: Moving of motion

If the Speaker, holds that the matter raised affects the

privilege or amounts to a contempt of the House and requires the

intervention of the House he may allow a motion to be made by any

Member that the alleged breach of privilege be referred to the

Committee of privileges or in the alternative that it be dealt with by

the House itself.

Rule 226: Suo motu reference to Committee by Speaker

Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the

Speaker may suo motu refer any question of privilege to the

Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report.

p) It is submitted when a question of breach of privilege was

alleged against me, the 1st respondent was obliged to follow the

procedure given in the Rules, specifically Rules 223 specifically

“Provided further the Speaker may give an opportunity to the

Member against whom the matter is sought to be raised to briefly

explain his case.” It is submitted that no opportunity was provided

to me to briefly explain my case to the House that no case for its

intervention is made out.


21

Page No: Corrns:

q) It is submitted that under Rule 223, the 1st respondent

must allow the member raising a question of privilege to state the

allegation and the Rule or privilege breached. It is submitted this is

to allow the member against whom the charge is made, to

understand the substance of the charge against him, and also to

allow him to reply to the allegation and give his justification. It is

further submitted that a failure to do so violates the principles of

natural justice, specifically the principle of audi alteram partem.

r) It is submitted that, as held in various decisions of High

Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where a legal provision

confers a right, immunity etc., to a person, and entailed civil

consequences, then the word “may” in the provision shall be read as

“shall”, so as to guarantee that the rights granted by law are

actually enjoyed by the person. It is further submitted, that the

right of hearing in Rule 223 is mandatory and must be complied

with by the 1st respondent before referring the matter to the

Privileges Committee. It is further submitted that since the 1st

respondent has not complied with Rule 223, the referral order of the

1st respondent itself is void. Moreover, the non-compliance of Rule

223 is not merely an irregularity but an illegality vitiating the

referral order, and consequently the show cause notice.

s) In Willie Slaney v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC

116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:


22

Page No: Corrns:

17. This, we feel, is the true intent and purpose of

Section 537(a) which covers every proceeding taken with

jurisdiction in the general phrase “or other proceedings under

this Code”. It is for the Court in all these cases to determine

whether there has been prejudice to the accused; and in doing

so to bear in mind that some violations are so obviously

opposed to natural justice and the true intendment of the Code

that on the face of them and without anything else they must

be struck down, while in other cases a closer examination of all

the circumstances will be called for in order to discover

whether the accused has been prejudiced.

t) It is submitted that by exhibiting the Gutka packets, I have

not violated any Rule of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules.

u) It is submitted that privileges of the State Legislatures are

governed by Article 194 of the Constituiton and until codified by

legislation, the Legislatures shall have the same privileges as they

had before the coming into force of Section 26 of the Forty-Fourth

Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1978. It is further submitted that

before the coming into force of that section, the Legislatures had

the same privileges as the House of Commons of the Parliament of

the United Kingdom before the commencement of the Constitution.

v) It is submitted that according to the learned author H M

Seervai, has categorized the privileges claimed by the House of

Commons as follows:


23

Page No: Corrns:

i. Freedom from civil arrest for members of the House

ii. Freedom of speech, debate and proceeding

iii. Each house is the sole judge of its proceedings, as well as

the law applicable to those proceedings

iv. Privilege of excluding strangers and prohibiting

publication of its proceedings

v. The power of the House to commit by a general warrant

vi. The power of the House to summon persons and to

demand the assistance of civil and military authorities

w) It is submitted that I have not violated any of the above-

mentioned privileges and neither the 1st nor the 3rd respondent have

explicitly stated the specific privilege that I have been alleged to

have violated.

x) It is submitted that the act of displaying Gutka packets is

not in violation of any rule or law, and hence, there is no matter of

privilege, or violation of privilege by me.

y) It is alternatively submitted that my act of displaying the

Gutka packets in protest and as a duty towards public in good faith

and good conscience is squarely covered under Article 105 of the

Constitution of India.

z) It is submitted that contrary to the contentions of the 1st

respondent, neither the purchase nor possession of Gutka is


24

Page No: Corrns:

prohibited by any law. It is submitted that the above mentioned

Central Regulation and State Notification prohibit only the

manufacture and sale of Gutka. Therefore, my act of displaying

Gutka packets, is an act of public service, in order to point out the

fallacious claims of non-availability of Gutka packets to the public.

aa) It is further submitted that the sale of Gutka is prohibited

in three forms:

a. Prohibition by Hon’ble Supreme Court,

b. Prohibitions by Law, and

c. Prohibition in the interest of justice.

Since the act of displaying Gutka packets during the debate to

show such a prohibited item being sold in the State with impunity ,

to show that the Government is not acting as per the law and to

exhibit that in fact the sale of Gutka is carried on with the collusion

of high ranking police officials does not fall under any of the above-

mentioned categories.

ab) I further submit that the show cause notice is vague and

unsustainable under the law.

24. It is submitted that the 1stRespondent referred the matter

to the Privileges Committee on 19th July 2017. It is submitted that

the decision of the 3rd respondent convening a meeting of the

Privileges Committee after more than a month i.e on 28th August


25

Page No: Corrns:

2017 clearly exhibits mala fides. Hence, he is arrayed as the Fourth

Respondent in personal capacity, by name. It is further submitted

that the timing of the meeting coinciding with the withdrawal of

support by 19 MLAs of the AIADMK to the ministry lead by Mr

Edapaddi K Palaniswami clearly bears this out.

25. I submit that as I was asked to submit my explanation to

the impugned notice, on or before 05.09.2017, I sent a letter to the

2nd Respondent on 04.09.2017 requesting to give 15 more days

time to submit explanation. In the said letter, I have clearly stated

the following:

a) There is no details as to the alleged violation of privilege of

the House.

b) It has become necessary to seek legal opinion as to whether

the show cause notice is legally valid and

c) There is no adequate time to collect the details as to

reference made on 19.07.2017 and the connected proceedings of

the earlier days. Hence, extension of time was sought necessary in

the interest of justice.

26. I submit that in the said circumstances, it is just and

necessary to grant interim stay of the impugned notice dated

28.08.2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent and its all further

proceedings pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. I have got


26

Page No: Corrns:

prima facie case and the balance of convenience in my favour. On

the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent.

27. I submit that since the original impugned reference is not

available, the production of the original impugned reference dt.

19.07.2017 may be dispensed with. A copy of the same is filed.

28. In these circumstances it is humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of the

original impugned reference dt. 19.07.2017 on the file of the 1st

Respondent and thus render justice.

29. In these circumstances it is humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of the impugned

notice dated 28.08.2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent and its all

further proceedings pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and

thus render justice.

30. In these circumstances it is prayed that this Hon’ble may

issue a writ of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to

the impugned reference dated 19.07.2017 in Serial No. 9 of the

Tamil Nadu Assembly Bulletin No.37 dated 19.07.2017 made by the

1st Respondent to the 3rd Respondent against the petitioner

regarding Gutka issue and consequential notice dated 28.08.2017

issued by the 2nd Respondent by referring to the decision said to

have been made by the 3rd Respondent in the meeting held on

28.08.2017, presided over by the 4th Respondent and quash the


27

Page No: Corrns:

same. It is further prayed that this Court may pass such further or

other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in facts and

circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Before me,

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on this

the 5th day of September 2017

and signed his name in my presence

Advocate, Chennai


k.s.ravichandran - images.assettype.comimages.assettype.com/.../2017/09/ravichandran-ks-wp... ·...

Documents