LexD.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR. versus D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,A 8 (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1272 D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR. v. D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. ETC. (Special Leave Petition ( C ) Nos. 33333-33335 of 2010) DECEMBER 16, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] . Constitution of India, 1950 - Tenth Schedule; Para 2 (2) - Disqualification application - Separate writ petitions by five C independent MLAs as also eleven B.J.P. members challenging their disqualification from State legislative Assembly - Subsequently, applications.by five independent MLAs to amend statement made in paragraph 9 of their petition, that 'the petitioners had not left the B.J.P. at all, and D substitute the same with 'petitioners have not joined B.J P. at . all and the evidence of the second respondent to the contrary are perverse and are liable to be set aside' - Application allowed by High Court - Interference with - Held: Not called for - No positive evidence was adduced to establish that the E petitioners had at all joined the B.J.P. - The statements made in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions was an inadvertent error on account of the preparation of the two sets of writ petitions having similar facts - Such a statement was intended to be made and was made in the writ petitions filed by 11 B.J.P. F M.L.As who had been disque.lified on the ground that they had left the B.J.P. and had joined another party- There was just one stray sentence in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions 'that petitioners had not left the B.J.P. at all' and the same could not be considered as a categorical admission if looked at G from the context of the proceedings itself - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI r. 17. H Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were elected as independent members to the State Legislative Assembly. They 1272 ' \ . D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR: 1 v. D. SUDHAKAR & ORS.1273 ETC. \ extended support to Yeddiyurappa-B:J.P. Government A and also joined the Government as Ministers. Subsequently, two sets of MLA-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 11 B.J.P. MLAs informed the Governor that due to corruption and nepotism in the functioning of the Government, they were withdrawing their support to the .. B Government headed by Chief Minister-B.S.Neddiyurappa. The Governor requested the Chief Minister to prove his majority on the floor of the House. "The Chief Minister sought disqualification of the five independent Members as also eleven B.J.P. MLAs from the Assembly under C paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. The Speaker of the Assembly disqualified the respondent Nos.1 to 5 as also eleven B.J.P. MLAs from their membership of the State Legislative Assembly. The respondents filed writ petition challenging the order 0 disqualifying them and enable them to participate in the proceedings of the House. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed applications under Or. VI r. 17 CPC read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the writ petitions praying for leave to amend a portion of paragraph 9 of their writ petitions 'that petitioners have not left the Bhartiya Janta E Party at all' and substitute the same with the following sentence 'petitioners have not joined B.J.P. at all and the evidence of the second respondent to the contrary are perverse and are liable to be set aside.' It was submitted that two set of writ petitions having been filed, the said sentence was inadvertently lifted from the set of writ petition filed by eleven B.J.P. MLAs to the set of writ petition filed by respondents Nos 1 to 5, in haste. The High Court allc.1wed the application. Therefore, the petitioners filed the instant Special Leave Petitions. F G Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court . HE:LD: 1.1 . The submission that the statements made in'paras;iraph 9 of the writ petitions to the effect that the H 1274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A petitioners had not left the 8hartiya Janata Party at all, was not a mistake but was intentionally made, and that the High Court had erroneously held otherwise, is not borne out by the circumstances indicated in the writ petitions, if considered in their totality. There is no 8 doubting the fact that the writ petitioners had all throughout indicated that they had been elected as independent candidates and had neither contested the elections on the 8.J.P. symbol nor had they, at any point of time, joined the 8.J.P. On the other hand, even in their c interim reply submitted to the Speaker in respect of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.