Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Before proceeding ahead we shall at this stage record in brief the events which took place before the filing of the disqualification petitions and thereafter insofar as they have bearing for the purpose of decision on the petitions before us. After the General Assembly elections held in 1994, the party position of various political parties was as under :

(a) INC - 18 seats.
(b) MOP - 12 seats.
(c) BJP - 4 seats.
(d) UGDP-3 seats.
(e) Independent - 3 seats.

Petitioners Nos. 6, 9, 10 and respondent No. 3 were elected members of MGP. but in January, 1995 they joined INC, as a result of which the strength of INC increased to 22 members in the House of 40 members. The other petitioners, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4 were elected at the inception as candidates put up by the INC. Respondent No. 1 was also elected on INC ticket and was chosen as Speaker of the Assembly. In 1997 Antonio Gaonker elected on UFDP ticket joined INC increasing its strength to 23. During the budget session which started on 29-6-98, two MLAs of MGP and one MLA of BJP on 13-7-98 gave notice of motion of removal of Speaker. As per Assembly Bulletin Part- II dated 24-7-98 issued by the Legislative Assembly of Goa the said notice was scheduled to come on 29-7-98 at 2.30 p.m. to seek the leave of the House to move the same. According to the petitioners, after the close of Assembly session on 24-7-98 they met at the residence of the first petitioner and resolved to split from the original political party and form a separate group by name GRC party under the leadership of the first petitioner. The resolution of split was not published as the alignment with the other political parties had not been finalised. On 27-7-98 at 9.00 a.m. first petitioner accompanied by 22 other MLAs went to Raj Bhavan and submitted letter dated 27th July, 1998 to the Governor informing him of the split in the Congress-I Party and formation of separate party called Goa Rajiv Congress party and called upon the Governor to ask the respondent No. 2 Chief Minister to take confidence vote on the floor of the House. Along with this letter, separate letters of 23 MLAs were also placed before the Governor. Simultaneously, the petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 also submitted letters of resignation from the Cabinet headed by respondent No. 2. According to the petitioners, the Governor advised them to move a motion of no confidence against the then Government of respondent No. 2 as the House was already in session. The petitioners informed the Speaker at 12.30 p.m. on 27th July, 1998 of formation of a separate group and sought allotment of separate seats for them and they were allotted separate seats in the House by respondent No. 1 from 27-7-98. At about 12.00 noon on 27-7-98 respondent No. 2 accompanied by Shri Luizinho Faleiro Minister/MLA met the Governor and requested that five Ministers namely petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 be dropped from the Cabinet as they no longer enjoyed his confidence.

After the revocation of President's rule on 25th January, 1991, Ravi S. Naik was sworn in as Chief Minister. On the same day Dr. Kashinath G. Zalmi belonging to the MGP filed a petition before the Speaker for disqualification of Ravi Naik on the ground of defection under Article 191(2) read with Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. On 15th February, 1991 Speaker Shri Sirsat passed order disqualifying Shri Naik from the membership of the Goa Legislative Assembly under Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India on the ground of defection as set out in para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. Shri Naik filed writ petition before the Panaji Bench of this Court. Prior to that on 10th December, 1990, two separate writ petitions had been filed for disqualification of legislators Shri Bandekar and Shri Chopdekar on the ground of defection under Article 191(2) read with para 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. Shri Sirsat, Speaker, had declared both of them as disqualified and they filed writ petitions before this Bench of the High Court. When the said writ petitions were pending, Shri Sirsat was removed from the office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker started functioning as Speaker in his place. Legislators Shri Bandekar and Shri Chopdekar filed applications for review of their order of disqualification dated 13th December, 1990 and the review applications were allowed by the Deputy Speaker functioning as Speaker by Order dated 7th March, 1991. The result was that Order dated 13th December, 1990 disqualifying the said Legislators Bandekar and Chopdekar was set aside. This order was challenged before this Bench of the High Court, but the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of laches on 4th February, 1992. Likewise, Shri Naik also filed an application for review of Order dated 15th February, 1991 under which he was disqualified and this review application was also allowed by the Deputy Speaker functioning as Speaker vide Order dated 8th March, 1991. Against this Order, writ petition was filed before this Bench of the High Court, but the same was dismissed on the ground of laches. Appeals were filed against the said orders before the Apex Court. The Apex Court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 31st March, 1993. The Apex Court held that Orders dated 7th March, 1992 and 8th March, 1992 made by Acting Speaker in purported exercise of review were nullity and as such, Order dated 13th December, 1990 passed by Speaker disqualifying legislators Chopdekar and Bandekar and Order dated 15th February, 1991 passed by Speaker disqualifying Shri Naik continued to operate and that writ petitions filed by the said legislators Bandekar and Chopdekar and Shri Naik would stand revived. The High Court was directed to dispose of the same on merit. The same were dismissed by this High Court. This is how the appeals were filed by legislators Bandekar and Chopdekar and Shri Naik before the Apex Court which were disposed of vide judgment in Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and others with Sanjay Bandekar and another v. Union of India and others (supra).

49. Learned Advocate for the petitioners, pointed out various factors to demonstrate that the Speaker acted in a biased manner. Learned Advocates for the respondents, submitted that challenge on the ground of personal bias or mala fides is not available.

50. We now proceed to illustrate the factors pointed out by learned Advocate for the petitioners which lead us to come to the conclusion that the Speaker had abandoned fair play and acted in a partisan manner :

(i) The notice for removal of the Speaker was given on 13-7-98 by two members of MGP and one member of B.J.P. and as per notice published in the Assembly Bulletin Part II, Notice of Motion was to be taken on 29th July, 1998. On 27th July, 1998 the petitioners had informed the Speaker that they had decided to separate from Congress-I Legislature party and to form Goa Rajiv Congress party and made a request to allot separate seats to the said group in the Assembly. It is in this background that ex-parte ad interim order passed by the Speaker on 28th July, 1998 disqualifying the petitioners has to be viewed. After disqualifying the petitioners by ex-parte ad interim order, the motion against the Speaker is said to have been taken on 29th July, 1998 and defeated. The said ex-parte ad interim order of the Speaker was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court to which both of us are parties in Writ Petitions No. 296/98 and 297/98. This judgment is dated 3rd August, 1998 wherein we had held that the Speaker had acted in great haste and against all canons and principles of natural justice and it appeared that the impugned order was passed with a view to preempt the corning events which had cast their shadow before. It was also found that the ground on which the public notice was issued that inspite of attempts to serve the petitioners, they could not be served, was not correct.