G. Rohini, J.

This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 30.07.2012 in Disqualification Petition No.2 of 2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal.

The writ petitioner was a member of the Indian National Congress Party and he was elected as a member of the A.P. Legislative Council from the Local Bodies Constituency of Warangal on 2.5.2007 for a period of six years. The 4th respondent herein who is also a member of the A.P. Legislative Council and Government Whip of Indian National Congress Party in A.P. Legislative Council filed a petition under para-2 (1) (a) of Tenth Schedule read with Article 191 (2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 6 of the Rules called the Members ofA.P. Legislative Council (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 (for short, ‘the Rules’) seeking a declaration that the writ petitioner is disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Council of A.P. alleging inter alia that the writ petitioner who got elected as a member of Legislative Council of A.P. on the B-Form issued by the Indian National Congress had participated in various anti-party activities and thus he had voluntarily given up his membership of Indian National Congress Party. In pursuance thereof, a show-cause notice together with a copy of the petition presented by the 4th respondent and the enclosed documents was served on the writ petitioner on 17.1.2012 calling upon him to explain the allegations. Having entered appearance through his counsel before the 2nd respondent, the writ petitioner filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made in the Disqualification Petition. After hearing both the parties, the 2nd respondent by the impugned order dated 30.07.2012 held that it was established that the writ petitioner had voluntarily given up his membership of the Indian National Congress and thus he was disqualified for being a member of the A.P. Legislative Council. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit supporting the impugned order and raising an objection as to the very maintainability of the writ petition in view of the finality clause in para-6(1) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

We have heard Sri A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri P. Kesava Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

The question relating to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition against the decision made under para-6(1) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India is no longer res integra. Having considered all the relevant aspects in detail, a Constitution Bench in KIHOTO HOLLOHAN v. ZACHILLHU & ORS. (1992 Supp. (2) SCC 651 = AIR 1993 SC 412) held that the concept of statutory finality embodied in para-6 of the Tenth Schedule does not detract from or abrogate judicial review under Articles 136, 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India insofar as infirmities based on violations of Constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity are concerned. This view has been reiterated in various later decisions including the decision of another Constitution Bench in RAJA RAM PAL v. HON’BLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA (2007) 3 SCC 184).

Therefore, we have no doubt that the present writ petition is maintainable, however the grounds of challenge are limited to violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity. In the light of the ratio laid down in the above decisions, it is also clear that the irregularity, if any, in the procedure can be no ground to challenge the order made by the 2nd respondent