Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disqualification of a Member of the State Legislature under Article 191(2) read with Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Compliance with procedural rules under the Disqualification Rules. 4. Effect of stay orders issued by the High Court on the Speaker's decisions. Summary: 1. Disqualification of Members: The appeals concern the disqualification of members of the Goa Legislative Assembly under Article 191(2) read with the Tenth Schedule. The Speaker disqualified Bandekar and Chopdekar on December 13, 1990, and Naik on February 15, 1991, on grounds of defection. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellants argued that the Speaker's decisions violated principles of natural justice. The High Court and Supreme Court examined whether adequate opportunity was provided to the appellants to present their case. The courts found that the appellants were given a fair opportunity and that the Speaker's reliance on newspaper photographs and other materials did not constitute a violation of natural justice. 3. Compliance with Procedural Rules: The appellants contended that the petitions for disqualification did not comply with the Disqualification Rules, specifically Rule 6 and Rule 7. The courts held that these rules are procedural and any violation constitutes an irregularity, not a breach of constitutional mandates. Therefore, such procedural violations do not warrant judicial review. 4. Effect of Stay Orders: The Speaker disregarded the High Court's stay order dated December 14, 1990, which stayed the disqualification of Bandekar and Chopdekar. The Supreme Court held that the Speaker was bound by the stay order, and any action taken in disregard of it was a nullity. Consequently, the exclusion of Bandekar and Chopdekar from Naik's group was incorrect, and the Speaker's order disqualifying Naik was quashed. Conclusion: - CA No. 3309 of 1993 (Bandekar and Chopdekar): Dismissed, upholding their disqualification. - CA No. 2904 of 1993 (Naik): Allowed, quashing the Speaker's order of disqualification.
|