JUDGMENT

 This appeal, by special leave, arises out of and is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-12-1990 of the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench at Panaji in Writ Petition No. 324 of 1990, rejecting appellants challenge to the order dated 14th December, 1990, of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Goa, made under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution disqualifying the appellant from membership of the Assembly on grounds of defection.

2. The matter arose out of certain proceedings initiated under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution introduced by the Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act, 1985 for the disqualification of the appellant, Dr. Luis Proto Barbosa, who was the then Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly on the ground that the appellant had voluntarily resigned from the membership of the political party otherwise than under circumstances which would attract the exemption under paragraph 5 of the Tenth Schedule.

3. Appellant was elected as member of the Legislative Assembly of Goa on the 26th November, 1989 as a candidate of the Congress (1) political party. On 2nd January, 1990 he was elected Speaker of the House. However, on 24th March, 1990, appellant while holding the office of the Speaker resigned from the Congress (I) party along with six other members of the said party with the avowed intention of forming a new party styled the "Goan Peoples Party". On 25th March, 1990 the resignation was accepted by the Congress (1) party. On 28th March, 1990, the fourth respondent, another Member of the House, filed a petition alleging that the appellant had incurred the disqualification from the membership of the Legislative Assembly under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and that appellant, accordingly, be so disqualified.

4. The Legislative Assembly acting under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule referred the decision on the question whether the appellant was so disqualified or not to a member of the House elected in that behalf (sic). That member was a certain Dr. Kashi Nath Jalmi who, it would appear, by his order dated 14th December, 1990 found that the appellant had incurred such disqualification within the meaning of Paragraph 2 read with paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule and made an order disqualifying the appellant. The legality of the proceedings culminating in this order of disqualification was assailed before the High Court in the writ petition. The High Court by its judgment under appeal dismissed the writ petition.

5. We have heard Shri P. H. Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sharma for the contesting respondents. We , have been taken through the order of the High Court under appeal.

Shri Parekh in his submissions substantially reiterated the contentions urged before 9 the High Court. Three contentions had been urged before the High Court. The first was one of non-compliance with Rule 6(6) of the Goa Daman and Diu Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986. It was alleged that copies of the petition and the annexures had not been signed and verified as required by the Rules. The High Court, in our opinion very rightly, found no merit in this contention. We agree with the reasoning of and the conclusions reached by the High Court on the point.

6. The second contention urged before the High Court was equally insubstantial. It was sought to be contended that inasmuch as appellant, after the filing of the petition for disqualification, had demitted office of the Speaker, the enquiry for disqualification could not be proceeded with. The disqualification incurred is from the membership of the House. The subsequent resignation from the office of the Speaker does not bestow immunity from that liability for disqualification. The High Court rightly rejected this contention.

7. The third contention urged before the High Court turned on the scope of the. exemption under paragraph 5 of the Tenth Schedule. The circumstances in this case are s