SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(SC) 340

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. VERMA, P.B. SAWANT AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.
r. Kashinath G. Jalmi and another, Appellants
Versus
The Speaker and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1094 with 1095 and 1096 of 1992
Decided on 31-3-1993.
WITH
Ramakant D. Khalap, Appellant
Versus
The Speaker, Legislative Assembly of Goa and others, Respondents.
AND
Churchill Alemao, Appellant
Versus
The Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Respondent.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 102, 191,136 and 226 - Impugned orders - Seeking disqualification - Termination from Service - Writ petitions orders passed by Speaker in purported exercise of the power of review setting aside earlier orders of disqualification of certain Members made on merits by Speaker were challenged on ground that Speaker has no such power of review - High Court took the view, that writ petitions were filed after considerable delay and therefore upholding the preliminary objection, had to be dismissed merely on ground of and therefore merits of the contention that the Speaker had no such power of review was not considered. The main questions which arise for decision in these appeals are therefore - On same day also a Member of the Legislative Assembly, presented a petition to Speaker seeking disqualification of as a Member of the Legislative Assembly on the ground that he had voluntarily given up Membership of his political party - On Speaker passed an order under of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution disqualifying on the ground of defection - On filed writ petition at the Goa Bench of Bombay High Court challenging the order of his disqualification made by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution - On High Court passed an interim order in that writ petition staying operation of the order of disqualification made by the Speaker - Held, appellants in C. A. suggested that, in all fairness writ petition should be revived in the High Court to enable to pursue his remedy of seeking judicial review against his disqualification - On the other hand learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal opposed the making of such an order. Both the learned counsel, however, submitted that the interim order of stay made therein would not revive even if that writ petition is revived and the High Court will have to consider afresh the question of making an interim order, at the behest - On the other hand appearing for in both these appeals submitted that it would be just in the circumstances of the case, to revive writ petition for decision on merits by the High Court and the interim order of stay should also enure to the benefit - Order accordingly

JUDGMENT

VERMA, J.:—These appeals, by special leave, arise from writ petitions Nos. 11 of 1992, 8 of 1992 and 70 of 1992, all dismissed by the Bombay High Court at the Goa Bench, merely on the ground of laches; and they involve for decision the common question relating to the power of review, if any, of the Speaker to review his decision on the question of disqualification of a Member of the House, rendered under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. In those writ petitions, the orders passed by the Speaker, in purported exercise of the power of review, setting aside the earlier orders of disqualification of certain Members made on merits by the Speaker, were challenged on the ground that the Speaker has no such power. of review. The High Court took the view, that the writ petitions were filed after considerable delay, and, therefore, upholding the preliminary objection, had to be dismissed merely on the ground of lachcs; and, therefore, merits of the contention that the Speaker had no such power of review was not considered. The main questions which arise for decision in these appeals are, therefore, two namely.

(1) LACHES - Are the impugned orders of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions merely on the ground of laches susceptible to interference under Article 136 of the Constitution in the present case; and

(2) POWER, OF REVIEW - If so, does the Speaker, acting as the authority under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, have no power of review, so that any order made by him in purported exercise of the power of review is a nullity?

2. The further question of the consequence and nature of relief to be granted, would arise only if these questions are answered in favour of the appellants.

3. Ravi S. Naik, Ratnakar M. Chopdekar and Sanjay Bandekar were duly elected Members of the Goa Legislative Assembly in the elections held in November, 1989. On 25-1-1991, Ravi S. Naik assumed the office of the Chief Minister of the State of Goa and he formed his Council of Ministers, which included Chopdekar and Bandekar as Ministers. On the same day, i.e. on 25-1-1991, Dr. Kashinath Jalmi, also a Member of the Legislative Assembly, presented a petition to the Speaker, Surendra V. Sirsat seeking disqualification of Ravi S. Naik as a Member of the Legislative Assembly on the ground that he had voluntarily given up the Membership of his political party. On 15-2-1991, the Speaker, Surendra V. Sirsat passed an order under para 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, disqualifying Ravi Naik on the ground of defection. On 16-2-1991, Ravi Naik filed writ petition No. 48 of 1991 at the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court challenging the order of his disqualification, made by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. On 18-2-1991, the High Court passed an interim order in that writ petition staying operation of the order of disqualification made by the Speaker. During the pendency of this writ petition, on 27-2-1991, Simon Peter DSouza was elected Deputy Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly; on 4-3-1991 Surendra V. Sirsat was removed from the office of Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, Simon Peter DSouza began functioning as the Speaker in place of Surendra V. Sirsat. The same day, i.e. on 4-3-1991, Ravi S. Naik made an application to Simon Peter DSouza, the Deputy Speaker functioning as the Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly, for review of the order dated 15-2-1991 of his disqualification made by the Speaker, Surendra V. Sirsat under the Tenth Schedule. On 8-3-1991, the Acting Speaker, Simon Peter DSouza made an order, in purported exercise of the power of review under the Tenth Schedule, setting aside the order dated 15-2-1991 made by the Speaker, Surendra V. Sirsat disqualifying Ravi S. Naik as a Member of the Goa Legislative Assembly. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 48 of 1991 filed by Ravi Naik challenging the order of his disqualification made by the Speaker on 15-2-1991 was dismissed as not pressed by him, on 22-








































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top