1. Both these writ petitions seek identical relief and hence, were heard together. While WP.No.412 of 2015 is filed by a member of the Telangana Legislative Council and a Whip of the Congress Legislature Party, WP.No.630 of 2015 is filed by a member of the A.P. Legislative Assembly and leader of Telugu Desam Party. In WP.No.412 of 2015 it is alleged that respondents 2 to 5 are primary members of the Indian National Congress, which is a recognized political party and are elected to the Legislative Council in that capacity whereas in WP.No.630 of 2015 it is alleged that respondents 2 and 3 are primary members of the Telugu Desam Party, which is also a recognized political party, and are elected to the Legislative Assembly in that capacity. Respondent No.6 in WP.No.412 of 2015 is the Chairman of the Telangana State Legislative Council whereas respondent No.4 in WP.No.630 of 2015 is the Speaker of the A.P. Legislative Assembly.

2. Petitioners allege in both the writ petitions respectively that the party respondents herein have committed acts attracting their disqualification on the ground of defection, which clearly falls under Schedule 10 of the Constitution of India and that appropriate application seeking to declare them, as such, was filed before respondent No.6 and respondent No.4 respectively in each of these writ petitions. It is further alleged that notices on the said petitions were sent to the respondents in each of these writ petitions but, thereafter, neither counters are filed nor there is any progress with reference to adjudication of the said disqualification petitions. Petitioners allege that they made representation for early disposal of these petitions but there is no response.

3. Consequently, the present writ petitions are filed with the prayers that procedural facet, which defeats the substantial right, is required to be interdicted by the process of judicial review by this Court and strong reliance is place upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Mayawati v. Markandeya Chand, (1998) 7 SCC 517 and in particular para 103 thereof. Further directions are also sought against respondent No.6 and respondent No.4 respectively to decide the said pending disqualification petitions by the next date of hearing by conducting proceedings on day-to-day basis and in the event of the respective respondents not completing the said proceedings, withdraw the petitions to this Court and decide the same in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, (2007) 4 SCC 270. Interim relief is also sought for seeking suspension of the party respondents in each of the writ petitions from the respective houses.

4. When WP.No.630 of 2015 was listed on 21.01.2015, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I had passed the following order:

“Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhayala, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balachandra L. Jarkiholi and others v. B.S. Yeddyurappa and others, 2011 Law Suit (SC) 549 and also the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kuldeep Bishmnoi v. Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha and others, 2010 Law Suit (P&H) 3236 and submits that the writ petition is maintainable and is not a bar under Clause 6 of Schedule 10 read with Article 212 of the Constitution of India. Since the question of maintainability of the writ petition is required to be first adjudicated, issue notice to the learned Advocate General to assist the Court.”

Thereafter, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions as well as the learned Advocate General for Telangana, who appeared to assist the Court as per the request noted above.

5. Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in terms of the power conferred on the Speaker, Rules have been framed by the Speaker called the Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on the ground of Defec