M. Sundar, J.

1. All these five writ petitions arise out of a common factual matrix and raise a common central issue. Therefore, we propose to dispose of all these five writ petitions by this common order. For appreciating this common order, it is necessary to set out the factual matrix in a nutshell and we do so infra.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX IN A NUTSHELL:

2(a) The common central issue that all these five writ petitions raise is whether nomination of three individuals as Members of Puducherry Legislative Assembly is valid. In other words, the central theme of these five writ petitions is validity, legality and propriety of nomination of three individuals as Members of Legislative Assembly of Puducherry.

2(b) One writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation ('PIL' for brevity), i.e., W.P.No.18788 of 2017 by an individual, who is a voter in one of the assembly constituencies of Puducherry Union Territory. Another writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.16275 of 2017 has been filed by the Chief Government Whip in the Puducherry Legislative Assembly. Three writ petitions being W.P.Nos.29591 to 29593 of 2017 have been filed by three individuals nominated as Members of Puducherry Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as 'MLAs' for brevity and convenience). To be noted, nomination of these three individuals as MLAs itself is under challenge here and referring to them as 'MLAs' is only for convenience. Aforesaid PIL and W.P.No.16275 of 2017 on one side and the three writ petitions filed by the MLAs on the other side are in the nature of cross suits. It may be appropriate to use the expression 'cross writ petitions' here. While the PIL and W.P.No.16275 of 2017 assail the proposed nomination/nomination on various grounds, three writ petitions by nominated MLAs assail a communication from the Secretary, Government of Puducherry, Legislative Assembly Secretariat dated 13.11.2017 communicating an order of the Speaker of Puducherry Legislative Assembly dated 12.11.2017 which in sum and substance says that the Speaker does not recognize their nominations.

2(c) Puducherry is a Union Territory with a legislative assembly. Puducherry legislative assembly is made up of 30 elected MLAs and 3 nominated MLAs.

2(d) In the last General Election to Puducherry Legislative Assembly held in 2016, one political party, i.e., Indian National Congress (hereinafter referred to as 'INC' for brevity) emerged as the single largest party and the break up of MLAs returned to the assembly by Puducherry electorate is as follows :

INC – 15

NR Congress – 8

AIADMK – 4

DMK – 2

Independent – 1

(AIADMK stands for All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and DMK stands for Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and we are informed that 'NR' in 'NR Congress' denotes Thiru.N.Rengasamy, former Chief Minister of Puducherry)

It unfurls from the submissions in the hearing that INC being the single largest party formed the Government in 30 member legislative assembly with the support of 2 DMK MLAs and one independent MLA.

2(e) On 23.06.2017, the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 3(3) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'UT Act' for brevity) nominated 3 individuals as nominated MLAs of Puducherry Legislative Assembly. The three individuals are V. Saminathan, K.G. Shankar and S.Selvaganabathy, who are writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.29591, 29592 and 29593 of 2017 respectively.

2(f) As stated supra, of all five writ petitions, two on one side and three on the other side are in the nature of cross litigations and for the sake of convenience and clarity, in this order, we refer to parties either by name or by designation rather than by their rank in any of the writ petitions.

2(g) The grounds of challenge of respective parties shall be set out infra under the caption 'Discussion'.

2(h) In the instant case, all three nominated members are also members of Bharatiya Janata Party (hereinafter 'BJP'). A letter written by the three nominated ML