REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4510-4514 OF 2011

D. Sudhakar & Ors. … Appellants

Vs.

D.N. Jeevaraju & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4517-4521 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1.The operative portion of this judgment was

pronounced on 13

th

May, 2011. The full text of the

judgment is now being pronounced.

2

2.Civil Appeal Nos. 4510-4514 of 2011 arising out

of SLP(C) Nos. 5966-5970 of 2011 are filed by five

Independent Members of the Karnataka Legislative

Assembly against a judgment of the Full Bench of

the Karnataka High Court upholding an order passed

by the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative

Assembly disqualifying them under Paragraph 2(2) of

Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India on the

ground that they had joined the Bharatiya Janata

Party (BJP) after their election to the Legislative

Assembly as Independent candidates. The said order

of disqualification was passed by the Speaker on

Disqualification Application No.2 of 2010 filed by

Shri D.N. Jeevaraju, Chief Whip, BJP, Karnataka

Legislative Assembly and Shri C.T. Revi, Member of

the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. Civil Appeal

Nos. 4517-4521 of 2011 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.

5995-5999 of 2011 are filed by the very same five

Independent Members of the Karnataka Legislative

Assembly challenging the very same judgment of the

3

Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding

the order passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka

Legislative Assembly disqualifying them under

Paragraph 2(2) of Tenth Schedule of the

Constitution of India. The said order was passed by

the Speaker on Disqualification Application Nos. 3

to 7 of 2010 filed by the voters from the

constituencies represented by the five MLAs. Since

the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly

had passed a Common Order dated 10

th

October, 2010

on Disqualification Application Nos. 2 to 7 of

2010, the impugned judgment of the Full Bench of

the High Court also was a Common Order passed in

Writ Petition Nos. 32674-32678/2010 and Writ

Petition Nos. 33998-34002/2010. Therefore the basic

dispute in these Civil Appeals relates to the

validity of the order of disqualification passed by

the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly

against the Appellants on Disqualification

Application Nos. 2 to 7 of 2010.

4

3.The Appellants herein were elected to the

Thirteenth Karnataka Legislative Assembly as

independent candidates in the elections held in

May, 2008. On 30

th

May, 2008, they were sworn in as

Ministers in the Cabinet of the government headed

by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa, who was elected as the

leader of the B.J.P. Legislature Party and was

sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State of

Karnataka. On 6

th

October, 2010, the Appellants

submitted separate letters to the Governor of

Karnataka stating that having become disillusioned

with the functioning of the Government headed by

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa, in which there was

widespread corruption and nepotism, a situation had

arisen where the governance of the State could not

be carried on in accordance with the provisions of

the Constitution of India. The Appellants also

indicated that Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa had,

therefore, forfeited his right to continue as Chief

Minister having lost the confidence of the people

5

and in the interest of the State and the people of

Karnataka, they were expressing their lack of

confidence in the Government headed by Shri B.S.

Yeddyurappa and as such they were withdrawing

support to the Government headed by him as the

Chief Minister. The Governor was also requested to

intervene and institute the constitutional process

as constitutional head of the State. On the same

day, on the basis of the letters written by the

Appellants and others, the Governor of Karnataka

asked the Chief Minister to prove his majority on

the Floor of the House by 12

th

October, 2010.

4.On the very next day i.e. on 7

th

October, 2010,

the Respondent Nos.1 and 3, namely, Shri D.N.

Jeevaraju and Shri C.T. Ravi, the Chief Whip and

the General Secretary of the Bharatiya Janata

Party, respectively, filed Complaint No.2 of 2010

dated 6

th

October, 2010 with the Speaker of the

Karnataka Legislative Assembly under Rule 6 of the

6

Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of

Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986,

hereinafter referred to as the “Disqualification

Rules”, to declare that the Appellants had incurred

disqualification on the ground of defection as

contained in the Tenth Schedule to the

Constitution. On the basis of the said

Disqualification Application, on 8

th

October, 2010

the Speaker issued Show-Cause Notices to the

Appellants informing them of the Disqualification

Application filed by the Chief Whip of the

Bharatiya Janata Party and the General Secretary

thereof, indicating that despite having got elected

as independent candidates, they became members of

the B.J.P. Legislature Party and also became

Ministers and thereby they violated Paragraph 2(2)

of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. The

Appellants were informed that they had acted in

violation of paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule

of the Constitution of India and it disqualified

7

them from continuing as Members of the Legislature.

The Appellants were given time till 5.00 p.m. on

10

th

October, 2010, to submit their objections, if

any, to the Disqualification Application either in

writing or presenting themselves in person, failing

which it would be presumed that they had no

explanation to offer and further action would

thereafter be taken ex-parte in accordance with

law. In the meanwhile on 9

th

October, 2010,

Disqualification Application Nos.3 to 7 were filed

by some voters against the Appellants and show-

cause notices were issued by the Speaker on the

same day requiring the Appellants to submit their

explanation before 5.00 p.m. on 10

th

October, 2010.

5.Having come to know about the show-cause

notices from the media, the Appellants through an

Advocate submitted a letter to the Speaker on 9

th

October, 2010, indicating that they had come to

learn from the media that the show-cause notices

8

had been issued to them as per the orders of the

Speaker. In the said letter it was categorically

stated that the procedural requirements of Rule 7

of the Disqualification Rules had not been complied

with as copies of the Petition and annexures were

not supplied to the Appellants and a period of 7

days to submit the reply was not given to them. A

specific request was made to the Speaker to supply

the said documents and to grant a period of 7 days

to submit the reply. Though the documents were not

supplied, the Appellants though their Advocate

submitted an interim reply on 10

th

October, 2010,

during the proceedings before the Speaker. It was

specifically stated in the reply that it was

submitted as an interim reply without prejudice to

and by way of abundant caution and reserving the

right of the Appellants to submit exhaustive reply.

6.The Appellants further submitted in the interim

reply that the notice was in clear violation of the

9

Disqualification Rules, 1986, and especially Rules

6 and 7 thereof. It was mentioned that Rule 7(3)

requires copies of the petition and annexures

thereto to be forwarded along with the show-cause

notice. The notice which was pasted on the doors

of the MLA quarters in the MLA hostels at

Bangalore, which were locked and used by the

legislators only when the House was in session,

called upon the Appellants to reply to the notice

by 5.00 p.m. on 10

th

October, 2010, which was in

complete violation of Rule 7 of the above-mentioned

Rules which laid down a mandatory procedure for

dealing with the petition seeking disqualification

under the Rules. In fact, even the time to reply to

the notices was reduced to the severe prejudice to

the Appellants. It was pointed out that Rule 7

requires that the Appellants should have been given

7 days’ time to reply or within such further period

as the Speaker may for sufficient cause allow. It

was contended that under the said Rule the Speaker

10

could only extend the time by a further period of 7

days, but could not curtail the same from 7 days to

3 days. It was the categorical case of the

Appellants that the minimum notice period of 7 days

was a mandatory requirement of the basic principles

of natural justice in order to enable a MLA to

effectively reply to the Show-Cause Notice issued

to him seeking his disqualification from the

Legislative Assembly. It was mentioned in the

reply to the Show-Cause Notice that issuance of

such Show-Cause Notice within a truncated period

was an abuse and misuse of the constitutional

provisions for the purpose of achieving the

unconstitutional object of disqualifying sufficient

number of Members of the Assembly from the

membership of the House in order to prevent them

from participating in the Vote of Trust scheduled

to be taken by Shri B.S. Yeddiyurappa on the Floor

of the House at 11 a.m. on 11

th

October, 2010. It

was contended that the Show-Cause Notice was ex-

11

facie unconstitutional and illegal, besides being

motivated and malafide and devoid of jurisdiction.

7.In addition to the above, it was also sought to

be explained that it was not the intention of the

Appellants to withdraw support to the government

formed by the B.J.P., but only to the Government

headed by Shri Yeddiyurappa. It was contended that

withdrawal of support from the Government headed by

Shri B.S. Yeddiyurappa as the Chief Minister of

Karnataka, did not fall within the scope and

purview of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution

of India. In the reply, the Appellants

categorically denied the allegation that they had

joined the Bharatiya Janata Party. It was asserted

that they remained independents and they had not

joined any political party including Bharatiya

Janata Party. It was claimed that they were always

treated as independents only. It was urged that the

conduct of the Appellants did not fall within the

12

meaning of “defection” or within the scope of para

2(2) of the Tenth Schedule of Constitution of India

or the Scheme and object thereof. However, on 10

th

October, 2010 itself, the Speaker passed an order

“disqualifying the Appellants from the post of MLA

for violation of Para 2 of the Tenth Schedule of

the Constitution of India with immediate effect.”

The said disqualification is the subject matter of

this litigation.

8.At this juncture, it is necessary to take note

of the fact that 13 MLAs, belonging to the

Bharatiya Janata Party, had also withdrawn their

support to the Government led by Shri B.S.

Yeddyurappa and had made the same request to the

Governor, as had been made by the Appellants

herein, for initiating the constitutional process

in the wake of their withdrawal of support to the

Government led by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa. This had

resulted in the filing of Disqualification

13

Application No.1 by Shri Yeddyurappa against the

said MLAs and ultimately in their disqualification

from the membership of the House. The Civil

Appeals challenging their disqualification has been

heard by this Court and judgment has been reserved.

Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the

same issues as were involved in the earlier cases

are also involved in the present case, except that

while in the case involving the 13 B.J.P. MLAs, the

allegation made against them was that they had

voluntarily left the Bharatiya Janata Party, in the

present case the allegation against the Appellants

is that having got elected as independent

candidates they had joined the Bharatiya Janata

Party by extending support to Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa

and by joining his Ministry as Cabinet Ministers.

The same grievances as were raised by the 11 B.J.P.

MLAs who were disqualified have been raised by the

Appellants herein. It has been reiterated on

behalf of the Appellants that the very basic

14

requirements of natural justice and administrative

fair play had been denied to them. On the other

hand, not only were they not served with notice of

the disqualification proceedings, but they were not

even given sufficient time to deal with the

allegations made against them. According to the

Appellants, the proceedings before the Speaker, who

had acted in hot haste in disqualifying the

Appellants before the Vote of Confidence was to be

taken by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa, had been vitiated

as a result of such conduct on the part of the

Speaker.

9.Appearing in support of the Civil Appeals

arising out of SLP(C) Nos.5966-5970 of 2011, Mr.

P.P. Rao, learned Senior Advocate, contended that

by not allowing the Appellants sufficient time to

even reply to the Show-Cause Notices issued to

them, in violation of Rule 7 of the Karnataka

Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members

15

on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986, the Appellants

had been deprived of a valuable opportunity to meet

the allegations, although their membership of the

House depended on a decision on the said

allegations and their response thereto. Mr. Rao

also submitted that apart from being denied a

proper hearing in terms of the statutory rules, the

High Court had erroneously interpreted the

provisions of paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule

to the Constitution of India in holding that the

Appellants had joined the Bharatiya Janata Party,

as alleged by the complainants. Mr. Rao submitted

that it had been alleged that the Appellants had

joined the Bharatiya Janata Party either when prior

to the formation of the Ministry they had given

individual letters of support to Shri Yeddyurappa

as the leader of the B.J.P. Legislature Party, or

when they had joined the Cabinet as Ministers in

the B.J.P. Government led by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa.

16

10.Mr. Rao then urged that the High Court had also

misconstrued the concept of whips being issued to

ensure compliance by Members of a particular

political party, who were also Members of the

Legislature Party of the said political party.

Mr. Rao urged that such whip had been issued to the

Appellants, who as Members of the Government may

have acted in terms thereof, but that did not mean

that the Appellants had formally joined the

Bharatiya Janata Party, as had been concluded by

the Speaker.

11.Mr. Rao contended that neither the Speaker nor

the High Court had addressed these issues correctly

in relation to the evidence available before him,

as had been observed by the Constitution Bench in

Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors. Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya

& Ors. [(2007) 4 SCC 270]. Mr. Rao submitted that

events subsequent to the date on which an

independent Member joins a political party is not

17

material for a decision as to whether the

particular Member had, in fact, joined the

political party or not. Mr. Rao also urged that

neither the decision in the case of Dr. Mahachandra

Prasad Singh Vs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative

Council & Ors. [(2004) 8 SCC 747], nor the decision

in the case of Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana

[(2006) 11 SCC 1], had any application to the facts

of this case, since in the said cases what was

sought to be explained by this Court is that the

Speaker could not give a finding regarding

disqualification on the basis of conduct subsequent

to the date on which a M.L.A. becomes disqualified

from being a Member of the House. It was also

observed that when the view taken by the Tribunal

is a reasonable one, the Court would be slow to

strike down the view regarding disqualification on

the ground that another view was better. Mr. Rao

urged that in the instant case, reliance by the

Speaker on the decision of this Court in the case

18

of G. Vishwanath Vs. Speaker [(1996) 3 SCC 353], is

not of much assistance to the Respondents, because

even from the conduct of the Appellants, it could

not be said that they had joined the B.J.P.

Legislature Party. Mr. Rao urged that the fact

that the Appellants had attended meetings of the

B.J.P. Legislature Party was of little help to the

Respondents since in the Attendance Register of the

meetings they had been shown as independent Members

and a separate group under the heading “Independent

Co-Members”.

12.Mr. Rao urged that the Appellants had always

been treated as a separate group from the B.J.P.

Legislature Party and it is only in connection with

this case that the Respondents had attempted to

show that the Appellants had joined the Bharatiya

Janata Party and by withdrawing support from the

B.J.P. Government led by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa,

19

they had incurred disqualification under paragraph

2(2) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.

13.Mr. Rao also contended that the Whip issued by

the Chief Whip of the B.J.P. Legislature Party did

not form part of the documents produced before the

Speaker, and, in any event, no Whip was served on

the Appellants nor had they signed such a Whip.

Therefore, the allegation that they had acted in

accordance with such Whip did not and could not

arise and the finding of the Speaker to the

contrary, was perverse. Mr. Rao added that the

Whips which have been subsequently brought on

record in W.P.(C)Nos.32674-32678 of 2010, reveal

that when the Whips were addressed to the ruling

party Members, including the Ministers, they were

addressed as Members of the Party, whereas the

remaining five Whips were addressed to the

Appellants as Hon’ble Ministers.

20

14.Mr. Rao also submitted that in the Whips issued

to the Appellants nowhere had it been indicated

that they had joined the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Mr. Rao urged that the positive case made out by

the Respondents in the application for

disqualification was that the Appellants had joined

the B.J.P. before they were sworn in as Ministers

of Cabinet rank on 30

th

May, 2008, and not that they

joined the B.J.P. later before the issuance of

Whips on 29

th

December, 2009. Mr. Rao repeated his

earlier contention that the question before the

Speaker for consideration was whether the

Appellants had joined the B.J.P. before their being

sworn in on 30

th

May, 2008, or not. It was

submitted that it was beyond the Speaker’s

jurisdiction to decide any matter other than what

had been indicated in the Disqualification

Application.

21

15.On the question of scope of judicial review of

the Speaker’s order, Mr. Rao submitted that

although reliance had been placed on paragraph 109

of the decision of this Court in Kihoto Hollohan

Vs. Zachillhu [(1992) Supp.2 SCC 651], wherein, it

was held that judicial review of the order of the

Speaker should be confined to jurisdictional errors

only, the observations contained in paragraph 103

of the judgment had not been noticed. Mr. Rao

submitted that in the said paragraph, it had been

clarified that the finality clause in paragraph 6

of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution does not

completely exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts

under Articles 136, 226 and 227 of the

Constitution, though, it does have the effect of

limiting the scope of the Courts’ jurisdiction

under the said provision. It was further observed

that the principle applied by the courts is that

inspite of a finality clause it is always open to

the High Court or the Supreme Court to examine

22

whether the action of the authority is ultra vires

the powers conferred on it or whether the power so

exercised was in contravention of a mandatory

provision of law. Mr. Rao urged that the judgment

in Kihoto Hollohan’s case (supra) could not be read

piecemeal, but would have to be read as a whole.

16.Mr. Rao submitted that in the instant case, the

Speaker’s order had been made in violation of

paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule by erroneously

equating the expression “Political Party” with the

Government of the State. Mr. Rao also submitted

that the order of the Speaker had been passed in

disregard of the relevant statutory Rules, namely,

the Karnataka Disqualification Rules and without

reconsidering the materials available with the

Speaker under the aforesaid Rules.

17.Mr. Rao then urged that the Speaker has also

erred in entertaining the applications of voters in

violation of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules and also

23

Rule 7(3) which require the Speaker to give a

minimum of 7 days’ time to reply to the show-cause

notice issued by him. Mr. Rao submitted that the

order was also liable to be quashed on the ground

of violation of the principles of natural justice

by not giving the Appellants a reasonable

opportunity to present their case effectively.

18.Mr. Rao lastly submitted that the order of the

Speaker was perverse and was tailored to suit the

Government led by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa in the Vote

of Confidence that was to follow the day after the

decision had been pronounced by the Speaker. Mr.

Rao also repeated his earlier submissions that the

Speaker had proceeded in the matter in great haste

to meet the aforesaid deadline.

19.Mr. Rao submitted that the Speaker had acted in

a mala fide manner in order to bail out the Chief

Minister and to save his own Chair by not referring

the case to the Committee of Privileges having

24

regard to the allegations of bias made by the

Appellants in their replies to the Show-Cause

Notices and deciding the case himself, while

continuing to be a Member of the Bharatiya Janata

Party while occupying the Chair of the Speaker.

20.On the question as to whether the

Disqualification Rules were mandatory or directory,

Mr. Rao submitted that the decision in Ravi S. Naik

Vs. Union of India [(1994) Suppl.2 SCC 641] was per

incuriam as it had not adverted to the decision of

the Constitution Bench in Kihoto Hollohan’s case

(supra), wherein it had been held that the

Speaker’s decision while exercising power under

paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule to the

Constitution did not enjoy the immunity under

Articles 122 and 212 from judicial scrutiny as had

also been pointed out by K.T. Thomas, J. in

Mayawati Vs. Markandeya Chand [(1998) 7 SCC 517].

Mr. Rao urged that in any event, the view expressed

25

in Ravi S. Naik’s case (supra) was no longer good

law after the subsequent Constitution Bench

decision in Rajendra Singh Rana ’s case (supra),

wherein it has been laid down that the Speaker was

expected to follow the Rules framed under the Tenth

Schedule which had been approved by the Legislative

Assembly. Mr. Rao urged that the Speaker had all

throughout treated the Appellants as independent

Members as would be evident from the debates of the

Assembly.

21.Mr. Rao then submitted that the circumstances

leading to the disqualification of the Appellants

was quite obviously stage-managed in order to help

the Chief Minister to survive the Confidence Vote

on 11

th

October, 2010, by any means and the same

will be evident from the affidavits filed later by

the voters who had filed Disqualification

Petitions, which exposed the involvement of the

Speaker and his Office as well as the Political

26

Advisor to the Chief Minister in inducing them to

sign such applications. Mr. Rao submitted that the

decision of the Speaker having been taken in

violation of paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule,

Rules 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7(3) of the Karnataka

Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members

on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986, and the

principles of natural justice, was perverse and

mala fide and was not sustainable either on facts

or law.

22.Appearing for the Appellants in the Civil

Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.5995-5999 of

2011, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate,

reiterated the submissions made by Mr. P.P. Rao in

the other set of appeals. Mr. Venugopal submitted

that merely because the Appellants had joined the

Council of Ministers in the Yeddyurappa Government,

it could not be contended that they had joined the

Bharatiya Janata Party. Mr. Venugopal submitted

27

that in the past there had been several instances

where Members elected as independents to the Lok

Sabha had served in the Governments formed by

Political Parties but had retained their status as

independent Members of the House. Mr. Venugopal

referred to the two instances when Mrs. Maneka

Gandhi was elected to the Lok Sabha as an

independent Member from Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh

and had served as Minister at the Centre in the

Governments led by the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Similarly, Shri Biswanath Das, Shri S.F. Khonglam

and Shri Madhu Koda, who were all independent

legislators, became Chief Ministers of the States

of Orissa, Meghalaya and Jharkhand.

23.Mr. Venugopal submitted that if by joining the

Yeddyurappa Ministry, the Appellants had shed their

independent status and had become Members of the

Bharatiya Janata Party, then they stood

disqualified from the membership of the House at

28

that stage itself. Such a stand had not, however,

been taken by the complainants or even the

opposition parties, till the Governor directed a

Vote of Confidence to be held on 12.10.2010. Mr.

Venugopal submitted that the said position would

make it very clear that the Appellants continued to

enjoy an independent status, although, they had

extended their support to the B.J.P. Government led

by Shri Yeddyurappa and had also joined the

Ministry as Cabinet Ministers.

24.Mr. Venugopal also repeated Mr. Rao’s

submissions that even at the B.J.P. Legislature

Party meetings the independent status of the

Appellants had been duly recognized and in the said

meetings they had been shown not as a part of the

Bharatiya Janata Party, but as a separate entity

with separate serial numbers. It was further urged

that it could not also be presumed that by joining

the rallies of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the

29

Appellants had joined the Party and had, therefore,

laid themselves open to disqualification as Members

of the House under the provisions of the paragraph

2(2) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.

25. Mr. Venugopal lastly submitted that the

Appellants had denied receipt of the Whips said to

have been issued to them by the Chief Whip of the

B.J.P. Legislature Party or having acted in

accordance therewith. Mr. Venugopal submitted that

by no stretch of imagination could it be assumed

that the Appellants by their aforesaid acts had

joined the Bharatiya Janata Party or had even

intended to do so. Mr. Venugopal submitted that

the impugned order of the Speaker was motivated and

made with the sole intention of disqualifying them

from participating in the Vote of Confidence which

was to be held on 11

th

October, 2010.

26.Appearing for the Respondent No.1 Shri D.N.

Jeevaraju and others in the Civil Appeals arising

30

out of the Special Leave Petitions filed by Shri D.

Sudhakar and others, Mr. Satpal Jain, learned

Senior Advocate, submitted that one single incident

cannot always be a factor to determine as to

whether an independent Member had joined a

Political Party or not and that there was no bar in

taking cognizance of subsequent events in order to

arrive at such a conclusion. It was submitted

that even if it be held that the Appellants had

joined the Bharatiya Janata Party by joining the

Ministry, the Speaker was always entitled to

consider the subsequent conduct of the Appellants

for purposes of corroboration of the earlier facts.

Mr. Jain submitted that paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth

Schedule to the Constitution makes it absolutely

clear that on the joining of a Political Party an

independent stands disqualified, but a declaration

to that effect could be made at a later stage.

31

27.Mr. Jain reiterated the stand which had been

taken on behalf of the Respondent No.1 before the

Speaker that the Whip which had been issued by the

Chief Whip was also meant for the Appellants and

had been served on them and they had also acted

according to the said Whip. It was urged that this

was not a case of support being rendered to the

B.J.P. Government led by Shri Yeddyurappa, either

from inside or from the outside, but this was a

case where the Appellants had wilfully shed their

independent status and had become Members of the

ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and by such conduct

they stood disqualified as Members of the House by

virtue of paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule to

the Constitution.

28.On the allegation with regard to the mala

fides, Mr. Jain submitted that the same would have

to be considered in the light of the circumstances

in which the order of the Speaker came to be

32

passed. It was submitted that once the question of

disqualification of the Appellants was brought to

his notice before the Vote of Confidence was to

take place, it became the constitutional duty of

the Speaker to decide the same before the Vote of

Confidence was taken in order to ensure that

persons who were not eligible to vote, did not

participate in the Vote of Confidence to be taken

on 11

th

October, 2010.

29.Mr. Jain referred to and relied on the

decisions of this Court in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad

Singh’s case (supra)and Jagjit Singh’s case (supra)

in support of his contention that in order to incur

disqualification under paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth

Schedule to the Constitution, it was not always

necessary that a written communication would have

to be made to the Party in that regard.

30. Mr. Jain also contended that in the translated

copy of the Whip which had been issued by the Chief

33

Whip of the B.J.P. Legislature Party, the very

vital words describing the Appellants as

Legislators of the Ruling Party had been omitted.

Mr. Jain submitted that this fact had not been

noticed by the High Court, particularly, since the

Whip was a single-line Whip. Mr. Jain submitted

that the Whip had been issued to all Members of the

Bharatiya Janata Party and its Ministers in the

same fashion as it had been issued to the

Appellants. Mr. Jain submitted that the order of

the Speaker disqualifying the Appellants from the

Membership of the House did not call for any

interference and the Appeals were liable to be

dismissed.

31.While dealing with the submissions of Mr. P.P.

Rao and Mr. Venugopal, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee,

learned Senior advocate, who appeared for Shri C.T.

Ravi, the Respondent No.3 in the Civil Appeals

arising out of the Special Leave Petitions filed by

34

Shri D. Sudhakar and others, submitted that the

provisions of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to

the Constitution made it quite clear that the

decision relating to disqualification on ground of

defection was final and, accordingly, the scope of

judicial review available against the order of the

Speaker in exercise of powers under the Tenth

Schedule to the Constitution was extremely limited,

as had been indicated in Kihoto Hollohan’s case

(supra), and was confined and limited to

infirmities based on (a) violation of

constitutional mandate; (b) mala fides; (c) non-

compliance with the rules of natural justice; and

(d) perversity. Mr. Sorabjee submitted that the

Speaker’s order impugned in the Appeals did not

suffer from any of the above-mentioned infirmities

and hence no judicial review was available to the

Appellants in the present case.

35

32.Mr. Sorabjee also relied heavily on the

decision of this Court in Ravi S. Naik ’s case

(supra) and also in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh ’s

case (supra), where the Disqualification Rules

framed by the Speaker in exercise of the power

conferred under paragraph 8 of the Tenth Schedule

to the Constitution, was held to enjoy a status

which was subordinate to the Constitution and could

not be equated with the provisions of the

Constitution. They could not, therefore, be

regarded as constitutional mandates and any

violation of the Disqualification Rules did not

also afford a ground for judicial review. Mr.

Sorabjee submitted that the aforesaid questions

were no longer res integra and had been

authoritatively settled by the aforesaid decision

of this Court.

33.On the question of mala fides, Mr. Sorabjee

submitted that as had been observed by this Court

36

in Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad Vs. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad

[(2005) 11 SCC 314], a series of repetitive and

almost abusive allegations against the Speaker was

not sufficient to support a charge of mala fides,

especially when it is leveled against a high

functionary such as the Speaker. Mr. Sorabjee

submitted that the law, as was also stated by this

Court in E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

[(1974) 4 SCC 3], is clear that the burden of

establishing mala fides is very heavily on the

person who alleges it, since the allegations of

mala fides are often more easily made than proved.

Mr. Sorabjee submitted that the Court could not and

should not uphold a plea of mala fides on the basis

of mere probabilities.

34.On the question of undue haste, which was one

of the pillars of the submissions relating to mala

fides, Mr. Sorabjee submitted that the Speaker was

bound to a schedule which had been set by the

37

Governor for holding the Vote of Confidence and he,

therefore, had no option but to reduce the time for

the Appellants to show cause as to why they should

not be disqualified from the membership of the

House to a period which was less than 7 days, as

was stipulated under Rule 7 of the Disqualification

Rules.

35.On the question of natural justice, Mr.

Sorabjee once again referred to the observations

made by this Court in Ravi S. Naik’s case (supra),

wherein it was observed that the rules of natural

justice were not immutable but flexible. Mr.

Sorabjee submitted that the same view had been

reiterated in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra) also.

Mr. Sorabjee contended that even if a different

view was possible from the view which had been

taken by the Speaker, unless the decision of the

Speaker was shown to be wholly perverse or contrary

to the provisions of the Constitution, the same

38

ought not to be discarded and substituted for a

different view which this Court may also consider

to be possible.

36.Mr. Sorabjee concluded on the note that the

essence of being an independent lies in his acting

according to the dictates of his independent

conscience, untrammeled by the dictates of the Whip

of any political party. Accordingly, an independent

could support a proposal of the Government or

oppose it, but that would be according to his

independent conscience and if such an independent

member joins as a Minister in the Government formed

by a political party, his independence is

compromised and as indicated in Kihoto Hollohan’s

case (supra), it was for him to resign his

membership of the House and go back to the

Electorate for a fresh mandate.

37.While adopting Mr. Satpal Jain’s and Mr.

Sorabjee’s submissions, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned

39

Senior Advocate, who appeared for the Respondent

Nos.4 and 5 in the Civil Appeals arising out of the

Special Leave Petitions filed by Sri Shivraj S.

Thangadgi and others, submitted that the said

Respondents as voters of the Constituency which had

elected the Appellants as independents were

aggrieved by the fact that the Appellants had acted

in a manner which was contradictory to the object

underlining the provisions in the Tenth Schedule to

the Constitution, namely, to curb the evil of

political defections motivated by lure of office or

other similar considerations which endanger the

foundation of our democracy. Mr. Gupta also relied

on the decisions of this Court in Kihoto Hollohan’s

case (supra) and G. Vishwanath’s case (supra).

Although, the locus standi of the Respondent Nos.4

and 5 to maintain a complaint under the

Disqualification Rules was strongly disputed in the

absence of any mention of a voter having a right to

file a complaint, Mr. Gupta submitted that even if

40

no rules had been framed by the Speaker under

paragraph 8 of the Tenth Schedule to the

Constitution, the Speaker was still vested with the

authority to take action against an independent

member on information received by him. Mr. Gupta

also relied on the decisions cited by Mr. Satpal

Jain and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee in support of his

aforesaid contention and submitted that the order

of the Speaker impugned in these appeals did not

call for any interference and the Appeals were,

therefore, liable to be dismissed.

38.Appearing for Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa in these

appeals, Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned Senior

Advocate, urged that the allegations made against

Shri Yeddyurappa of colluding with the Speaker to

obtain an order of disqualification of the

Appellants before the date scheduled for the Vote

of Confidence in the House, was wholly unjustified

and uncalled for. Mr. Narsimha submitted that Shri

41

Yeddyurappa was duty bound to inform the Speaker of

any incident or incidents that may have occurred

after the Members had been elected to the House,

which would disqualify them from the membership

thereof and Shri Yeddyurappa had, therefore, acted

as part of the duties of his office in informing

the Speaker by way of the Disqualification

Application regarding the conduct of the Appellants

as well as some of the other MLAs belonging to the

Bharatiya Janata Party.

39.Referring to the concept of collective

responsibility of the Council of Ministers as

envisaged in Article 75 of the Constitution, Mr.

Narsimha submitted that as had been commented upon

in M.P. Jain’s “Indian Constitutional Law”, (Sixth

Edition), “a notable principle underlying the

working of Parliamentary Government is the

principle of collective responsibility which

represents ministerial accountability to the

42

legislature” and that Article 75(3) lays down that

the Council of Ministers shall be collectively

responsible to the Lok Sabha. Mr. Narsimha urged

that the principle of collective responsibility

ensured the unity of the Members of the Government

and also made sure that each individual Minister

took responsibility in regard to Cabinet decisions

and to take action to implement the same.

40.Mr. Narsimha submitted that as soon as the

Appellants joined the Ministry led by Shri

Yeddyurappa as Ministers, they divested themselves

of their independent character and became

collectively responsible to the other Members of

the Cabinet and the Members of the State Assembly

for governance of the State.

41.Most of the grounds taken in the present set of

appeals were also taken in the Civil Appeals

arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.33123-

33155 of 2010 and other connected appeals filed by

43

Balachandra L. Jarkiholi and others. As indicated

hereinbefore the only point of difference between

the two sets of appeals is that while in the

earlier set of appeals the issue involved was

whether the Appellants had voluntarily given up

their membership of the Bharatiya Janata Party so

as to attract the disqualification provisions

contained in paragraph 2(a) of the Tenth Schedule

to the Constitution, in the present set of appeals

the question is whether the Appellants having been

elected as independent members of the Karnataka

Assembly had incurred disqualification from the

membership of the House in terms of paragraph 2(2)

of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution by

joining the Bharatiya Janata Party through their

acts of extending support to a government led by

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa and becoming Ministers in the

said government.

44

42.From the facts as disclosed during the hearing

and the materials on record, it is the admitted

case of both the parties that the Appellants had

been elected to the 13

th

Karnataka Legislative

Assembly as independent candidates in the elections

held in May 2008. It is also not disputed that

immediately after the declaration of the results of

the Assembly Elections on 25.5.2008, Shri B. S.

Yeddyurappa secured letters of support from the

Appellants herein on 26

th

May, 2008, and on the same

day he addressed a letter to the Governor claiming

majority support of the House which included the

support of the Appellants herein, with a request to

the Governor to appoint him as Chief Minister of

the State. It is also undisputed that on 30.5.2008

Shri Yeddyurappa was sworn in as Chief Minister of

Karnataka along with the Appellants as Cabinet

Ministers and on 4.6.2008, he proved his majority

in the House.

45

43.The question with which we are concerned is

whether by their said acts, or acts subsequent

thereto, the Appellants could be said to have

joined the Bharatiya Janata Party.

44.After having been sworn in as Ministers in the

Government led by Shri Yeddyurappa, the Appellants

undisputedly attended meetings of the B.J.P.

Legislature Party and had also participated in

rallies and public meetings which had been

conducted by the said party. The Speaker, as well

as the Full Bench of the High Court, came to the

conclusion that by offering letters of support to

Shri Yeddyurappa and joining his Council of

Ministers, the Appellants had shed their

independent status and had joined the Bharatiya

Janata Party, and the same was subsequently

corroborated by their further action in attending

the meetings of the B.J.P. Legislature Party and

participating in its programmes. Both the Speaker

46

and the High Court, therefore, held that the

Appellants had become disqualified from the

Membership of the House under paragraph 2(2) of the

Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

45. In the absence of any written and/or

documentary proof of the Appellants having

joined the Bharatiya Janata Party, both the Speaker

and the High Court relied on the decision of this

Court in Ravi Naik’s case (supra), which was

subsequently followed in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad

Singh’s case (supra) and Jagjit Singh’s case

(supra), in which it was held that in order to

incur disqualification under paragraph 2(2) of the

Tenth Schedule to the Constitution it was not

always necessary that a written communication would

have to be made to the political party in that

regard. As far as issuance of Whip by the Chief

Whip of the Bharatiya Janata Party is concerned,

such an act would not ipso facto be taken as

47

conclusive proof that the Appellants had joined

Bharatiya Janata Party. Furthermore, in the face

of denial by the Appellants of having been served

with the Whip, there is nothing on record to prove

that they were actually received by the Appellants.

46.The decisions referred to hereinabove have

settled certain principles of law relating to

interpretation of the provisions of the Tenth

Schedule to the Constitution, but the said

principles have to be applied in each case in its

own set of facts. In the facts of this case,

there is no material or evidence to show that the

Appellants had at any time joined the B.J.P. Even

as independents, the Appellants could extend

support to a government formed by a political party

and could become a Minister in such government.

There is no legal bar against such extension of

support or joining the government. Hence, such

extension of support or joining the government as

48

Minister by an independent does not by itself mean

that he has joined the political party which formed

the government. There is also no evidence to show

that the Appellants were accepted and treated as

members of the B.J.P. by that political party. It

is to be noted that the Petitioners before the

Speaker had no grievance about the Appellants

supporting the B.J.P. Government and becoming

Ministers in the government, for more than two

years. Only when the Appellants withdrew support

to the government led by Shri Yeddyurappa and a

Confidence Vote was scheduled to be held, the

Petitioners raked up the issue of alleged

disqualification. The Appellants, even while

participating in the meetings of the B.J.P.

Legislature Party, were shown separately in a

category different from the other participants in

such meetings, which clearly indicates that the

Appellants, though Ministers in the Government led

by Shri Yeddyurappa, were treated differently from

49

members of B.J.P. and were considered to be only

lending support to the Government led by Shri

Yeddyurappa, without losing their independent

status. Mere participation in the rallies or public

meetings organised by the B.J.P. cannot lead to the

conclusion that the Appellants had joined the

B.J.P.

47.The results of the election were declared on

25

th

May, 2008. Sri B.S. Yeddyurappa was elected

as Leader of the B.J.P. Legislature Party on 26

th

May, 2008. The Appellants who had been elected as

Independents declared their support to Sri

Yeddyurappa as Chief Minister on 26

th

May, 2008. In

the Notification dated 27

th

May, 2008 constituting

the Legislative Assembly, the Appellants were shown

as Independents. In the statement submitted by the

Leader of the B.J.P. Legislature Party, the names

of Appellants were not included in the list of

B.J.P. members. In the Registers maintained by the

50

Speaker under Rules 3 & 4 of the Disqualification

Rules, the Appellants were shown as Independents

and at any time after they were sworn in as

Ministers on 30

th

May, 2008, no change was effected

in the Registers. No information was furnished

either by the Appellants or by the B.J.P.

Legislature Party to include the Appellants among

B.J.P. members. Thus, as per the Records of the

Legislative Assembly, the Appellants were not

members of B.J.P. when the order of

disqualification was passed by the Speaker.

48.We are unable to accept the submission made on

behalf of the Respondents that by extending support

to Shri Yeddyurappa in the formation of the

Bharatiya Janata Party led government, the

Appellants had sacrificed their independent

identities. The fact that the said Appellants also

joined the Council of Ministers does not also point

to such an eventuality. It is no doubt true that

51

an independent legislator does not always have to

express his intention to join a party in writing,

but the mere extension of support to Shri

Yeddyurappa and the decision to join his Cabinet,

in our view, were not sufficient to conclude that

the Appellants had decided to join and/or had

actually joined the Bharatiya Janata Party,

particularly on account of the subsequent conduct

in which they were treated differently from the

Members of the Bharatiya Janata Party. In view of

our finding that the Appellants had not joined any

political party as alleged, the order of

disqualification passed by the Speaker was against

the Constitutional mandate in para 2(2) of the

Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

49.This leaves us with the other question as to

whether the Speaker acted in contravention of the

provisions of Rule 7(3) of the Disqualification

Rules under which a Member of the House, to whom a

52

Show-Cause Notice is issued, has to be given 7

days’ time or more to reply to the Show-Cause

Notice. The question which immediately follows is

whether the Speaker acted in hot haste in disposing

of the Disqualification Application against the

Appellants for their disqualification from the

House. Yet another question which arises is with

regard to the scope of judicial review of an order

passed by the Speaker under paragraph 2(2) of the

Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, having regard

to the provisions of Article 212 thereof.

50.There is no denying the fact that the Show-

Cause Notices issued to the Appellants were not in

conformity with the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of

the Karnataka Legislative Assembly

(Disqualification of Members on Ground of

Defection) Rules, 1986, inasmuch as, the Appellants

were not given 7 days’ time to reply to the Show-

Cause Notices as contemplated under Rule 7(3) of

53

the aforesaid Rules. Without replying to the said

objection raised, the Speaker avoided the issue by

stating that it was sufficient for attracting the

provisions of paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule

to the Constitution that the Appellants herein had

admitted that they had withdrawn support to the

Government led by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa. The

Speaker further recorded that the Appellants had

been represented by counsel who had justified the

withdrawal of support to the Government led by Shri

Yeddyurappa. Without giving further details, the

Speaker observed that the Disqualification Rules

had been held by this Court to be directory and not

mandatory, as they were to be followed for the sake

of convenience. The provisions of Rule 7(3) of the

Disqualification Rules were held by the High Court

to be directory in nature and that deviation from

the said Rules could not and did not vitiate the

procedure contemplated under the Rules, unless the

violation of the procedure is shown to have

54

resulted in prejudice to the Appellants. The

Speaker wrongly relied upon the affidavit filed by

Shri K.S. Eswarappa, State President of the B.J.P.,

although there was nothing on record to support the

allegations which had been made therein. In fact,

the said affidavit had not been served on the

Appellants. Since Shri K.S. Eswarappa was not a

party to the proceedings, the Speaker should have

caused service of copies of the same on the

Appellants to meet the allegations made therein.

Coupled with the fact that the Speaker had violated

the provisions of Rule 7(3) of the Disqualification

Rules in giving the Appellants less than 7 days’

time to reply to the Show-Cause Notices issued to

them, failure of the Speaker to cause service of

copies of the affidavit affirmed by Shri K.S.

Eswarappa amounted to denial of natural justice to

the Appellants, besides revealing a partisan

attitude in the Speaker’s approach in disposing of

the Disqualification Application filed by Shri B.S.

55

Yeddyurappa. If the Speaker had wanted to rely on

the statements made in the aforesaid affidavit, he

should have given the Appellants an opportunity of

questioning the deponent as to the truth of the

statements made in his affidavit. This conduct on

the part of the Speaker also indicates the hot

haste with which the Speaker disposed of the

Disqualification Application, raising doubts as to

the bona fides of the action taken by him. The

explanation given by the Speaker as to why the

notices to show cause had been issued to the

Appellants under Rule 7 of the Disqualification

Rules, giving the Appellants only 3 days’ time to

respond to the same, is not very convincing.

There was no compulsion on the Speaker to decide

the Disqualification Applications in such a great

hurry, within the time specified by the Governor

for the holding of a Vote of Confidence in the

government headed by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa. It

would appear that such a course of action was

56

adopted by the Speaker on 10

th

October, 2010, since

the Vote of Confidence on the Floor of the House

was to be held on 12

th

October, 2010. We have no

hesitation to hold that the Speaker’s order was in

violation of Rules 6 & 7 of the Disqualification

Rules and the rules of natural justice and that

such violation resulted in prejudice to the

Appellants. Therefore, we hold that even if Rules

6 & 7 are only directory and not mandatory, the

violation of Rules 6 & 7 resulting in violation of

the rules of natural justice has vitiated the order

of the Speaker and it is liable to be set aside.

51.We are next faced with the question as to the

manner in which the Disqualification Applications

were proceeded with and disposed of by the Speaker.

On 6

th

October, 2010, on receipt of identical

letters from the Appellants withdrawing support to

the B.J.P. Government led by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa,

the Governor on the very same day wrote a letter to

57

the Chief Minister informing him of the

developments regarding the withdrawal of support of

the 5 independent MLAs and 13 B.J.P. MLAs and

requesting him to prove his majority on the Floor

of the House on or before 12

th

October, 2010 by 5.00

p.m. The Speaker was also requested to take steps

accordingly. On the very same day, Shri B.S.

Yeddyurappa, as the leader of the B.J.P. in the

Legislative Assembly, filed an application before

the Speaker under Rule 6 of the Disqualification

Rules, 1986, for a declaration that all the 13 MLAs

elected on B.J.P. tickets along with two other

independent MLAs, had incurred disqualification

under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.

Immediately thereafter, on 7

th

October, 2010, the

Speaker issued Show-Cause Notices to the concerned

MLAs informing them of the Disqualification

Application filed by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa and also

informing them that by withdrawing support to the

Government led by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa, they were

58

disqualified from continuing as Members of the

House in view of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth

Schedule to the Constitution. On 7

th

October, 2010

itself, Petitions were filed against the Appellants

by the Respondents and the Speaker on 8

th

October,

2010 issued show-cause notices to the Appellants.

The Appellants and the B.J.P. MLAs to whom show-

cause notices were issued were given time till 5.00

p.m. on 10

th

October, 2010, to submit their

objection, if any, to the said application. Apart

from the fact that the Appellants were not given 7

days’ time to file their reply to the Show-Cause

Notices, the High Court did not give serious

consideration to the fact that even service of the

Show-Cause Notices on the Appellants and the 13

MLAs belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party had

not been properly effected. Furthermore, the MLAs

who were sought to be disqualified were also not

served with copies of the Affidavit filed by Shri

K.S. Eswarappa, although the Speaker relied heavily

59

on the contents thereof in arriving at the

conclusion that they stood disqualified under

paragraph 2(1)(a)/2(2) of the Tenth Schedule to the

Constitution. The MLAs were not supplied with

copies of the affidavits filed by Sri M.P.

Renukacharya and Shri Narasimha Nayak, whereby they

had retracted the statements which they had made in

their letters submitted to the Governor on 6

th

October, 2010. What is even more glaring is the

fact that the Speaker not only relied upon the

contents of the said affidavits, but also dismissed

the Disqualification Application against them on

the basis of such retraction, after having held in

the case of 13 MLAs belonging to the Bharatiya

Janata Party that they had violated the provisions

of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the

Constitution immediately upon their intention to

withdraw their support to the Government led by

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa was communicated to the

Governor.

60

52.It is obvious from the procedure adopted by the

Speaker that he was trying to meet the time

schedule set by the Governor for the trial of

strength in the Assembly and to ensure that the

Appellants and the 13 B.J.P. MLAs stood

disqualified prior to the date on which the Floor

test was to be held. Having concluded the hearing

on 10

th

October, 2010 by 5.00 p.m., the Speaker

passed detailed orders, in which various judgments,

both of Indian Courts and foreign Courts, and

principles of law from various authorities were

referred to, on the same day, holding that the

Appellants and the other MLAs stood disqualified as

Members of the House. The Vote of Confidence took

place on 11

th

October, 2010, in which the

disqualified Members could not participate, and in

their absence Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa was able to

prove his majority in the House.

61

53.Unless it was to ensure that the Trust Vote did

not go against the Chief Minister, there was hardly

any reason for the Speaker to have taken up the

Disqualification Applications in such a great

haste.

54.We cannot lose sight of the fact that although

the same allegations as had been made by Shri

Yeddyurappa against the disqualified B.J.P. MLAs,

were made also against Shri M.P. Renukacharya and

Shri Narasimha Nayak, whose retraction was accepted

by the Speaker, despite the view expressed by him

that upon submitting the letter withdrawing support

to the B.J.P. Government led by Shri B.S.

Yeddyurappa, all the MLAs stood immediately

disqualified under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth

Schedule to the Constitution, the said two

legislators were not disqualified and they were

allowed to participate in the Confidence Vote, for

reasons which are obvious.

62

55. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order of

the Speaker is vitiated by mala fides.

56.On the question of justiciability of the

Speaker’s order on account of the expression of

finality in paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule to

the Constitution, it is now well-settled that such

finality did not bar the jurisdiction of the

superior Courts under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of

the Constitution to judicially review the order of

the Speaker. Under paragraph 2 of the Tenth

Schedule to the Constitution, the Speaker

discharges quasi-judicial functions, which makes an

order passed by him in such capacity, subject to

judicial review.

57.We are, therefore, unable to sustain the

decision of the Speaker, as affirmed by the High

Court on all counts, and we, accordingly, allow the

appeals and set aside the orders passed by the

63

Speaker on 11

th

October, 2010 and by the Full Bench

of the High Court on 14

th

February, 2011.

58. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

…………………………………………J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi

Dated: 25.01.2012