- (1.) PETITIONERS in this writ petition are the members of the Legislative Assembly of Goa. Respondent No. 1 is the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Goa, Respondent No. 2 is the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Goa and respondent No. 3 is the Chief Minister of Goa. The petitioners have filed the present writ for quashing the order passed by the Deputy Speaker, respondent No. 2 dated 7th/8th March, 1991 whereby respondent No. 2 had reviewed and set aside the order of the earlier Speaker dated 15th February, 1991 disqualifying respondent No. 3 as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Goa.
(2.) AT the admission stage it is contended by Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Speaker-respondent No. 2 dated 7th/8th March, 1991 is illegal, void and inoperative. According to the petitioners under Tenth Schedule to the Constitution there is no power given to the Speaker to review his own decision either express or implied and therefore the impugned order dated 7th/8th March, 1991 is without jurisdiction. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions the learned Counsel Mr. Kakodkar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also attacked the aforesaid order on the ground that the Speaker referred to in para 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution does not include Deputy Speaker acting under Article 180 (1) of the Constitution of India. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions lastly it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the findings arrived at by the Deputy Speaker in the impugned order dated 7th/8th March, 1991 are perverse and therefore, illegal and void.
(3.) MR. Kakodkar submitted that under para 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution the decision given by the Speaker on the point of disqualification of a member is final. In order to support his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in (Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. and others) A. I. R. 1969 S. C. 483 wherein it has been laid down that the provisions giving jurisdiction must be construed strictly. By referring to the aforesaid authority it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that since para 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution refers to Speaker it is only Speaker who can give the decision in respect of complaints as regards disqualification of a member. He further contended that Tenth Schedule to the Constitution is self contained Code and therefore provisions under Article 180 (1) of the Constitution will not be applicable in respect of provisions to disqualification on the ground of defection as mentioned in the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. Mr. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners also contended that the power of review is not inherent and must be conferred either specially by law or by necessary implication. To give stress on this proposition petitioners relied upon the ratio of the case decided by the Supreme Court in (Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjun Singhji) A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 1273, and also in (H. C. Suman and another v. Rahabilitation Ministry Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. , New Delhi and others) 1991 (4) Supreme Court Cases, 485.;