{"id":282507,"date":"2023-01-27T09:00:24","date_gmt":"2023-01-27T03:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=282507"},"modified":"2023-01-31T12:57:04","modified_gmt":"2023-01-31T07:27:04","slug":"opposition-leader-of-legislative-assembly-rajasthan-sought-directions-to-issued-to-speaker-to-take-decision-on-the-resignation-tendered-by-91-mlas-legal-news-legal-research-updates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/27\/opposition-leader-of-legislative-assembly-rajasthan-sought-directions-to-issued-to-speaker-to-take-decision-on-the-resignation-tendered-by-91-mlas-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","title":{"rendered":"[Congress MPs Mass Resignation] Advocate General alleges all 91 MLAs have withdrawn their resignation applications; Rajasthan High Court directs them to be placed on record"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Rajasthan High Court<\/span>: The division bench of Pankaj Mithal, Chief Justice and Shubha Mehta, J., granted time to Advocate general (‘AG') to obtain fresh instructions given the changed circumstances that all the MLAs had withdrawn their resignation applications.<\/p>\n

The opposition leader of the Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan, by way of Public Interest Litigation had sought for directions to be issued to the Speaker of the House (‘Speaker') to take decision on the resignation tendered by 91 Members of the Legislative Assembly (‘MLA') in September 2022, within a stipulated time.<\/p>\n

The primary grievance before the Court was to determine the time period within which the Speaker was to take decision on the resignations so tendered, in discharge of his statutory obligations.<\/p>\n

AG in his response stated that all the MLAs have withdrawn their resignation but without disclosing the date as to when the resignation was withdrawn. It was further alleged that the Speaker, after perusing the resignation letter and withdrawal application of the same, rejected the tendered resignations.<\/p>\n

The Court however, noted that neither the copies of the application for withdrawal of resignations nor the order of the Speaker refusing to accept the resignation were placed on record. In addition, the respondents did not even clarify as to what ought to be the fair and reasonable time for taking decision when such resignations are tendered.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that petitioner's earlier objection, as to AG having no authority to represent the Speaker in this regard, since his representation is confined only to the Government of Rajasthan, was not pressed by him.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court considering the circumstances, granted AG time to obtain fresh instructions in the matter and file additional affidavit responding to the queries mentioned above.<\/p>\n

The matter is listed on 30-01-2023 for further hearing.<\/p>\n

[Rajendra Rathore v. The Hon'ble Speaker, Rajasthan Assemble, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 16<\/a>, order dated 02-01-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the petitioner- Rajendra Rathore, Petitioner in Person<\/p>\n

For the respondents- Advocate General M.S. Singhvi with Advocate Sheetanshu Sharma<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/b><\/p>\n

[Congress MPs Mass Resignation] Rajasthan High Court seeks decision of Speaker of the House in 10 days<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n