AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General appearing for the State of Maharashtra 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.