DR. KASHINATH G. JALMI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus SPEAKER AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 31-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. KASHINATH G. JALMI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
SPEAKER AND ORS. 
MARCH 31, 1993 
B 
(J.S. VERMA, P.B. SAWANT AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ-Dismissal at admission stage on ground of 
--:-
C /ache,,-Whether valid. 
Legislative Assembly-Speaker's order disqualifying members under 
Tenth Schedule-Review by Speake,-Setting aside disqualification or-
der,,-Writ in the nanire of class action challenging review order after ten 
month,,-Allegation that disqualified members continue to hold public of-
D [ice-Dismissal by High Court on the ground of /aches held unjustifie<f-Anal-
ogy of limitation provided under Section 81( I) of People's Representation 
Act, 1951 held inapplicable-Distinction between writs enforcing personal 
rights and writs relating to assertion of public rights in the nature of class 
action held re/evam-Motive and conduct of petitioner held relevant only for 
denying costs but not a justification to refuse examination of question of 
E public concern on merits. 
F 
Doctrine of /aches. 
Te111h Schedule-Legislative Assembly-Order of Speaker disqualifying 
members on the ground of defectiorr-:Speaker whether has implied power to 
review-Disqualification order. 
Article 136-Appea/ by special /eave-Dismissal of writ petitions by 
High Court on the ground of /ache,,-Whether susceptible to interference. 
R.S., R.M. and S.B. were elected as Members of the Goa Legislative 
G Assembly in the Elections held in November, 1989. Subsequently, R.S. 
assumed office of Chief Minister and formed his Council of Ministers 
including R.M. and S.B. as Ministers. Thereafter, the appellant (In C.A. 
1094/92), a Member of the Assembly, presented a petition to the Speaker 
of the Assembly seeking disqualification of R.S. on the ground that he had 
H voluntarily given up the membership of his political party. By its order 
820 
-
K.G. JALMI v. SPEAKER 
821 
dated 15.2.91 the Speaker passed an order under Para 6 of the Tenth A 
Schedule of the Constitution disqualifying R.S. on the ground of defection. 
R.S. filed a writ petition before the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court 
challenging the order of disqualification and by an interim order the High 
Court stayed the operation of the disqualification order. During the pen· 
r· 
dency of the writ petition the Speaker was removed from office and a B 
deputy speaker was elected in bis place who began functiouing as S.peaker. 
R.S. filed an application before the Acting Speaker seeking review of his 
Disqualification order and on 8.3.91 the Acting Speaker passed an order, 
in purported exercise of his power of review under the Tenth Schedule, 
setting aside the Disqualification order dated 15.2.91. Consequently tile 
writ petition filed by R.S. challenging bis disqualificatiou order was dis-
C 
missed as not pressed, by the High Court on 8.1.92 the appellant filed a 
petition challenging the review order dated 8.3.91 passed by the Acting 
Speaker on the ground that the Speaker did not have any power to review 
the earlier order of disqualification. Without going into the merits of the 
case the High Court dismissed the petition at the admission singe on the D 
ground of laches. The decision of the High Court was impugned before 
this Courts. 
Subsequently, another member of the Assembly, appellant in C.A. 
1096/92, also filed a writ petition challenging the review order dated 8.3.91 
passed by the Acting Speaker setting aside the earlier order disqualifying E 
R.S~ on similar grounds. The High C<1urt also dismissed the same at the 
admission stage for the same reason, i.e. lacbes. Against the order dis-
missing the writ petition an appeal was preferred in this Court. 
In the connected appeal (C.A. 1095/92) the appellant applied to the F 
Speaker seeking disqualification of R.M. and S.B. on the ground of defec· 
tion and by his order dated 13.12.90 Speaker passed the order disqualify-
ing R.M. and S.B. under the Tenth Schedule. Both of them filed petitions 
challenging the disqualification order and by an interim order the High 
Court stayed the disqualification orders. In the meantime, in a manner 
similar to that in the case of R.S., the Acting Speaker by his order dated G 
7.3.91, in purported exercise of the review. set aside the orders dated 
13.12.90 disqualifying R.M. and S.B. The appellant filed a petition chal-
lenging the orders of review passed by the Acting Speaker. It was also 
dismissed by the High Court on the ground of laches. A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.