Back
2001 Supreme(Bom) 656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(PANAJI BENCH)
Smt. K.K. Baam A.S. Aguiar, JJ.
Wilfred A. D’Souza (Dr.) .... Petitioner.
Versus
Hon’ble Speakar of the Legislative
Assembly of the State of Goa others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 173, 172 174 of 2001, decided on 18-7-2001.
Advocates appeared :
J.E. Coelho Pereira, Sr.A. with J. Godinho, in W.P. Nos. 173, 172 174 of 2001, for petitioner.
A.N.S. Nadkarni with Ms. W. Coutinho, in W.P. Nos. 173, 172 174 of 2001, for respondent No. 1.
S.K. Kakodkar, Sr.A. with V.R. Tamba, Joel D’Souza and M. Raikar, in W.P. Nos. 173 172 of 2001, for the respondent No. 2.
V.P. Thali in W.P. Nos. 172 174 of 2001, for respondent No. 2.
The Speaker enjoys total immunity from judicial review in matters not yet finalized, and the proceedings under the Tenth Schedule are deemed to be proceedings of the legislature, barring interference by the courts.
Headnote:
Delay in Disqualification Petitions - Tenth Schedule - [DELAY] - [DISQUALIFICATION PETITIONS] - [Tenth Schedule of the Constitution]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed petitions for disqualification of respondents No. 2 under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, alleging delay in deciding the petitions by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner sought directions for expeditious disposal of the petitions, as the respondents continued to participate in important government business while the petitions were pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under Articles 226 and 227, and that the Speaker enjoyed total immunity from judicial review in matters not yet finalized. The court also found that the proceedings under the Tenth Schedule were deemed to be proceedings of the legislature, and thus not subject to interference by the courts.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Articles 226 and 227? 2. Whether the Speaker enjoys total immunity from judicial review?
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Speaker enjoyed immunity from judicial review in matters not yet finalized, as the proceedings under the Tenth Schedule were deemed to be proceedings of the legislature. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to relief under Articles 226 and 227.
Final Decision: The court summarily dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and that the petitions were not maintainable under Articles 211 and 212 of the Constitution.
2. The petitioners herein has filed the petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondent No. 1, the Hon'ble Speaker of the Legislature Assembly, to take up and/or decide the Disqualification Petition Nos. 1, 4 and 3 of 2000 expeditiously and within a time frame, for costs and other reliefs.
3. Apart from Writ Petition No. 173 of 2001, the petitioner herein has filed against the respondent No. 1 Hon'ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, two other petitions which are pending, that is, Writ Petition No. 172 of 2001 against Manohar Azgaonkar, i.e. respondent No. 2 Writ Petition No. 174 of 2001 against Sanjay Bandekar, i.e., respondent No. 2 and disqualification petition has also been filed against Ramkant Khalap.
4. The brief facts which have given rise to the filing of the petitions are stated as under :-
On 9th November, 2000, the petitioner filed petitions for disqualification of the respondents No. 2 under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution to the effect that the respondents No. 2 incurred the disqualification under paragraph 2(a) of the Tenth Schedule. On 24th November, 2000, notices were issued to the respondents No. 2 requiring them to furnish comments in writing on the petitions, to which respondents No. 2 sought two months' time to file their replies on the ground that as Ministers they were busy discharging their duties and further that they desired to engage lawyers to file replies on their behalf. Accordingly, on 1st December, 2000, one month's time was granted to the respondents No. 2 to file their replies.
5. By an application dated 11th December, 2000, the petitioner sought to recall the order dated 1st December, 2000 on the ground that sufficient cause had not been shown by the respondents No. 2 for seeking time to file their replies and that the respondents No. 2 were discharging their duties of Ministers when petitions for disqualification were pending and, according to the Rule, 7 days time was provided for filing replies. On 11th December, 2000 in response to the notice of the respondent No. 1, the Leader of the Indian National Congress filed his comments on the petitions and by order dated 14th December, 2000 the petitioner's application was rejected and the order granting respondents No. 2 one month's time was maintained. On 23rd December, 2000, the respondents No. 2 filed their replies to the petitions, to which the petitioner filed his rejoinder.
6. According to the petitioner, the pleadings were completed as far back as on 5th February 2001. However, no action was taken by the respondent No. 1, the disqualification petitions were not decided no heard, hence, an application was made by the petitioner on 9th March, 2001 seeking a direction that the petitions be fixed for hearing and be disposed of expeditiously as the respondents No. 2, who had to be disqualified, continued to be Ministers and participate in the Assembly Sessions where important business of the Government were taken up for consideration and decided. Another application was made by the petitioner on 9th April, 2001 reiterating the request for expeditious hearing of the disqualification petitions. As the matters were not heard, these petitions have been filed.
7. According to the petitioner, though the petitions for disqualification have been filed as far back as in November 2000, no action has been taken, the same have not been heard, as a result of which respondents No. 2, who are Ministers in the Cabinet headed by Mr. Manohar Parrikar which transacts important Government business, participate in the Assembly Sessions when petitions for their disqualification are pending hearing.
8. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents No. 2 are also participating in the
