IT News
Imphal, May 15:
MLA Yumkham Erabot Singh of Wangkhei Assembly Constituency had served legal notice to Advocate Thokchom Deepak Singh for misinterpretation of supreme court order dated May 62,021 and for serving legal notice to state Government authority threatening contempt petition to each department if monetary benefit have been given to the MLA.
The legal notice served by Law consortium in behalf of MLA Y Erabot said that the three directions passed by the Supreme Court are
a) Having been sworn-in as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, respondent no.1 shall be entitled to represent the electorate in the house and shall be entitled to participate in the debates.
b) However, respondent no.1 shall not be entitled to cast any vote on the floor of the House or in any committee of the House.
c) He shall also not be entitled to draw any monetary benefits in respect of the office of Member of the Assembly.
From bare perusal of the said directions, it is manifestly clear that my Client is the current the MLA representing the people of 15-Wangkhei Assembly Constituency and as such, he is allowed to participate in the debates of the House as MLA representing the people of the 15-Wangkhei Assembly Constituency.
“Therefore, your statements in your Legal Notice that “ all the power and privileges of Yumkham Erabot singh as MLA of 15- Wangkhei Assembly constituency has been taken away by Hon’ble Supreme court by its order dated 06/05/2021 in civil appeal No 1666 of 2021″ and the statement that my client is only entitled “to represent the electorate in the house (inside the house) and participate in the debates and nothing else” is nothing but a malicious distortion of a simple and clear direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a deliberate attempt to mislead the general public”, the legal notice served by the Law Consortium said.
The notice further said that he had intentionally and maliciously misrepresented the third direction of the Supreme Court’s order.
In the legal notice by Advocate Thokchom Deepak Singh it was stated that “Y. Erabot is now not entitled to any monetary benefits (including Local Area Development Fund) in respect of office of MLA”, whereas the Supreme Court only directed that my Client “shall also not be entitled to draw any benefits monetary in respect of the office of Member of the Assembly”. By using the term “draw any monetary benefits” the Supreme Court only stopped my Client from drawing salary and allowances as a member of the Legislative Assembly. As such, the Supreme Court’s direction was only limited to my Client’s salary and allowances and does not include Local Area Development Fund. However, you have willfully, intentionally and illegally with ulterior motive expanded the third direction by insinuating that my Client is not entitled to the Local Area Development Fund or any other matter involving public exchequer.
It added that the advocate had distorted and misrepresented the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order when he warned the Government authorities of contempt if they allow my Client to deal with the distribution of good grain, fair price shops, etc., by CAF&PD. It is no-brainer to understand and realize that the Supreme Court’s interim direction dated 06/05/2021 did not bar my Client from distributing food grain and other essential commodities by CAF&PD as current MLA for the people and welfare of his constituency.
Moreover, your statement in this regard is in direct contradiction with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court particularly when the direction clearly stated that my Client is entitled to represent the electorate in the house and entitled to participate in the debates.
Consequently, my Client took your Legal Notice as willful and malicious misrepresentation and distortion of Supreme Court’s order dated 06/05/2021 motivated solely by a desire to injure my Client.
It said the first and second direction does not suffer from any form of ambiguity and hence, an elaborative explanation of the same would not be required. However, in regards to the third direction, the term “monetary benefit” has attracted some uninvited discourse and specifically your interpretation of this terminology has motivated us to give an unbiased and purposive understanding of this term, and to demarcate its scope. An academic and scholarly understanding of the term “monetary benefit” implies the money or resources which are specifically to be enjoyed by a person for his/her personal purpose. Hence, to my Client Yumkham Erabot, who is the present MLA of 15-Wangkhei AC, his salary and personal remunerations as a legislator would mean monetary benefit to him. The scope and exercise of this term “monetary benefit” is limited only until this point. However, it has been inferred that, from your elaborative understanding of the term “monetary benefit”, its scope goes on to expanding and including MLA local area development fund and other financial resources including distribution of food grains, fair price shops, etc. by CAF&PD. Your such interpretation of the term “monetary benefit” is ill-founded and baseless.
To begin with, MLA local area development is the scheme through which the central government provides funds to each constituency for their development and to address their local needs. In this strategy of decentralizing the utility of money, the actual transaction of the money occurs between the central government and the people of the constituency who are the beneficiaries of this scheme. In this process, a legislature will function as a mediator to invest the money in the welfare of the people of his/her constituency. By applying this same fundamental to my Client MLA Yumkham Erabot in its true sense, it is clear that my Client shall not enjoy this money as monetary benefit. Rather, it is part of his duty as a legislature to judiciously invest in development of his constituency. This clearly reveals that MLA local area development fund is not related to “monetary benefit”.
