SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M.M. Punchhi, C.J.I., S.C. Agrawal and K.T. Thomas, JJ.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4495 of 1998. D/d. 24.2.1998.

Jagdambika Pal - Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Dr. Ashok Nigam and Ms. Anu Mohla, Advocates.

For the State of U.P. :- Mr. H. N. Salve, Sr. Advocate Mr. Adarsh K. Goel, Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Yatindra K. Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Mr. R. C. Verma, Mr. R. B. Misra, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Mr. Arvind Verma and Mr. Kavin Gulati, Advocates.

For the Respondent No. 4 :- Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Shiela Goel, Advocate. Constitution of India, Article 163 - Petition against dismissal of Chief Minister and swearing of another person as Chief Minister without floor-test - - Supreme Court directed convening of Special Session of Assembly and to have a joint floor-test between contending parties - Supreme Court, directed to be treated as notice to all MLAs.

[Para 1]

ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard learned counsel for the Caveators. On hearing them, the order which commends to us is as follows :

(i) A special Session of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly be summoned/convened for 26th February, 1998, the Session commencing forenoon.

(ii) The only Agenda in the Assembly would be to have a composite floor-test between the contending parties in order to see which out of the two contesting claimants of Chief Ministership has a majority in the House.

(iii) It is pertinently emphasised that the proceedings in the Assembly shall be totally peaceful and disturbance, if any, caused therein would be viewed seriously.

(iv) The result of the composite floor-test would be announced by the Speaker faithfully and truthfully.

2. The result is expected to be laid before us on 27th February, 1998 at 10.30 AM when this Bench assembles again.

3. Ancillary directions are that this order shall be treated to be a notice to all the MLAs, leaving apart the notices the Governor/Secretariat is supposed to issue. In the interregnum, no major decisions would be made by the functioning Government except attending to routine matters, not much of any consequence.

4. To come up on 27th February, 1998 as part-heard.

Order accordingly.