Hon'ble RATHORE, J.-The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13042/2009, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.

2. Brief fact giving rise to the present appeal are that six members (respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein) of the 13th House of Rajasthan Assembly who were elected on the ticket and symbol of Bahujan Samaj Party (for short 'the BSP), passed a resolution on 04.04.2009 stating that they have merged the BSP into Indian National Congress (In Rajasthan Legislative Assembly) in terms of sub paragraph (1)(a) and 2 of paragraph (4) of Schedule X of the Constitution of India. Thereafter the aforesaid six MLAs filed an application dated 04.04.2009 before the Hon'ble Speaker, Rajasthan Vidhansabha along with said resolution claiming merger of the BSP into Indian National Congress (In o Rajasthan Legislative Assembly) supported by their individual affidavits.

3. Hon'ble the Speaker passed an order dated 09.04.2009 exercising his jurisdiction in terms of Schedule X and thereby accepted the aforesaid claim of the six BSP MLAs and allowed them to merge into Indian National Congress (In Rajasthan Legislative Assembly) with the stipulation that they may now be 5 treated as members of Indian National Congress.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Hon'ble Speaker dated 09.04.2009, the appellant/petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13012/2009 titled as Shri Krishna vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The said writ petition was listed before this Court on 09.11.2009 and following submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge:

"It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 09.04.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Speaker, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, Jaipur is illegal and without jurisdiction. He has contended that the proceedings under Schedule X of the Constitution of India gets started before the Hon'ble Speaker only on a complaint being made before him that certain persons belonging to political party had incurred disqualification on the grounds of defection. Further, he has submitted that even Rule 6 of Rajasthan Assembly Members (Disqualification on the grounds of defection) Rules 1989 contemplates the making of an application to the Hon'ble Speaker when there is a complaint that some Member has voluntarily given up his Membership in the party. It is only then that in terms of schedule X, the H9n'ble Speaker is called upon to decide the question of disqualification raised before him in the context of Schedule X para 6 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Rajendra Singh Rana versus Swami Prasad Maurya (2007) 1 SCC 270.

It has also been contended that the proceedings of disqualification are, in fact, not before the House; but only before the Speaker as a specially designated authority. The decision under paragraph 6(1) is not the decision of the House, nor is it subject to the approval by the House. Such decision by the Hon'ble Speaker operates independently of the House. Therefore, it has been submitted that the Speaker while exercising powers and discharging functions under the Xth Schedule act as Tribunal adjudicating rights and obligations under the Tenth Schedule and his decision in that capacity is amenable to judicial review. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the cases of Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachillhu, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 651; Kashinath G. Jalmi (Dr.) versus The Speaker, (1993) 2 SCC 703; I. Manilal Singh versus H. Borobabu Singh (Dr.), 1994 SuppI.(1) SCC 718 and Raja Ram Pal versus Hon'ble Speaker Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184."

5. The learned Single Judge considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner an