Dilip B. Bhosale, J.

1. The question of law that falls for our consideration is ‘whether the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can issue mandatory direction to the Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly to dispose of a disqualification petition within a time frame?.

2. The facts, that are relevant for addressing the question, are taken from W.A.No.158 of 2015 arising from W.P.No.630 of 2015. This writ petition was filed by the appellants against four respondents including the Speaker of the State Assembly with the prayer that procedural facet, which defeats the substantial rights, is required to be interdicted by the process of judicial review by this Court and, in support, a strong reliance was placed upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Mayawati v. Markandeya Chand and others (1998) 7 SCC 517). Further, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the Speaker to decide the pending disqualification petitions filed by him under the provisions of the A.P. Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 (for short “Defection Rules”) on the next date of hearing, that may be fixed by this Court and conduct the proceedings on day-to-day basis if necessary. The petitioner also prayed for withdrawal of disqualification petitions and decide the same in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Rana and others v. Swamy Prasad Maurya and others (2007) 4 SCC 270), if this Court is satisfied that the Speaker would not comply the directions to dispose them of within time frame. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, did not press this prayer.

2.1 The petitioner is a member of A.P. State Legislative Assembly and leader of Telugu Desam Party (for short “TDP”). Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are also members of the Legislative Assembly and primary members of the TDP, which is a recognized political party. They all got elected as members of the Legislative Assembly in the name of TDP and on the ‘B-FORM’ issued by them from different constituencies.

2.2 The petitioner has filed disqualification petitions bearing D.P.Nos.5/2014, 6/2014 and 7/2014 seeking disqualification of respondent Nos.1 to 3 alleging that they have committed acts attracting their disqualification on the ground of defection, which clearly falls under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed disqualification petitions under the provisions of Defection Rules on 24th November, 2014. According to the petitioner, after filing of the separate disqualification petitions against respondent Nos.1 to 3, notices were issued to them on 5th December, 2014, and since then till today they have neither filed counters nor there is any progress with reference to adjudication of disqualification petitions. The petitioner claims that he made efforts by making application for early disposal of disqualification petitions but no orders are passed nor the petitions are heard till this date. The respondents in Writ Petition Nos.7679 and 7217 of 2015 and the respondents in the instant appeal are similarly placed members of the Legislative Assembly.

2.3 The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court for the reliefs as aforementioned under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petitions were heard and disposed of by common order dated 10.02.2015 holding that the petitions, for the prayers as made therein, are not maintainable. As a matter of fact the learned Judge has only considered the question ‘whether the writ petitions are maintainable principally in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachilluhu (1992 SUPP (2) SCC 651).

2.4 This Court had issued notices to respondent Nos.1 to 3 on 03.03.2015 and to the Speaker on 23.07.2015. The speaker, however, refused to accept the notice.

3. In this backdrop, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and with their assistance gone through the impugned orders and other mat