PANAJI, 21TH OCTOBER, 1994 lKARTIKA 5, 1916) I SERIES " No. 30 . . - ...... ~, . -. . . I;~~"'\ . .' OFFICIAL~ GAZETTE GOVERNMENT .OF

-' ·EXTRROft DIN 1\ NY

, '2•. The respondent and Shri-R. D. Khalap~ Leader of M. G. GOVERNMENT OF GOA Party were given a copy of, the pe~1tion to furnish their comments within 7 days from the date of receipt of' the UGlSlATURE SECRETARiAl same under Rule 7 of :Members of Goa Legisla:tive A.sseril-bly (Disqualification on Grounds- ,of Defection) RuleS 198$'.· . , 3. Shrl R. !J. Khalap and the respondent Shrl DIulrm:a. Notificotion Chodal,lkar, vide their letter, dated 17-1-1992 prayed 2 week!t and 3 weeks- time respectively for filing their comments' and No. LA/A/Z608/1994 were granted time till 16~3-'92 to -file their comments.

The following decision dated 22nd October, 1~ of the 4. The petitioner vide his appl!cation dated 15-1.1992 prayed 'Speaker of Leglslative Assembly of State of Goa given· under for amendments of the plaint stating t:ba.t In the aa1d petition Rille·8 (2) of the Membells of Goa Legislative" Assembly the typing error -has occurred on page 1, line 2 'wherein ins..­ .(:Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules. 1986 _framed tead of words "Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party" the words wider the ·Tenth Schedule of the COnstitution of India Is here-. "" ·has been typed and he furl\ler· pi n.~tified and. published, stated that the. saki-- error was on account of typing lapse No.• 9S ·and tlie amendment. 'may be carried out in the following. terms. Dele.te the words "Indian NatiOnal Congress" appearing of the State f!f Goa Bulletin Pa'tt-ll LelMlaiit)(~'-48s8mbly in para NQ. 1 in line 2 on pa~ 1 and substitute the words Saturday; the,22nd October. 1994/Asvina 30/Salta, 1916 j'Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party". 5. As the petltlonerstated it was a typing error and It 93.-The foUowilig decision dated Z2nd October, 19,94- of the was apparent on the face of record the amendment of' the . Speaker' of LegiSlative A,ssem,bly of the State of Go~ given, . petitioner·was allowed. under -Rule 8{2)- of·the Members of Goa Legislativ~ Assembly (Disquallfication-on-:gr.ound- of Defection) Rule~ 1986 fr~ed 6. The respondent Shri Dharma. V. Chodankar, and Shri under the- Tenth', Schedule to, the Constitution -of India, is R. D. Khalap, Leader of M. G. P. party filed their eomments .:hereby notIfied and published. . on 27·2-199:1. . "In the matter of Petition filed 7. The respondent subsequently maqe ,an .. application on by Shrl Pandurang D.:Raut, 7-1-1992 for amendment of written statement stating that . MLA.. against Sbrl Dhanna after para 4 add the following para 4 (a) without pre-judice Chodankar, MLA. . ,to, the foregoing and without admitqng any averments of ~itting the petition it is submitted. as follows:

(a) The so~called Maharashtrawadi Goinantak Party (Ravl Naik Group) with -all its sO-called members inclu~ Order ding petitioner h~rein have, merged/joined the Indian Na· tional' ,Congress (I). The Mruharashtrawadl- Gomantak party Reference. No. 7/9Z (' Group) therefore'does not exist and hence the - Petitioner. petitioner has no locus standi and caUse of action- with Shrl Pan~urang D. Raut, MLA the respondent_ here:n. The petition is therefore liable to be Vis. dismissed ili limine. Advocate f-Or the' petitioner .did. n~t Shri 'Dharma Chodankar, MLA - Respondel?-t. object to the amendments. and the same was· carried out. The facts of the case are as follows:- Shri Pandurang Raut, MLA of the Legislative Assembly of the', State, of Goa' has filed a petition on 9-1-,92 agamst. Shrl The' contention of the ,petitioner is that the respondent' Dharma V. Choqankar, MLA of Legislative· Assembly of alongwith the petitioner and six other members of the- Le­ :the: State' of_ Goa: that Shri Dharma V. Chodankar be, dis­ gislative Assembly belonging to the Maharashtrawadi Go­ qualified for beirtg a Member of the House under Article mantak Party namely S/Shri Ravi S. Naik, ShankaJ; :K. Sal·.. 191(2) of the Constitution of India read with. the Tenth Sche­ gaonkar, Ashok T. Naik ~algaonkar, Sanjay Bandekar, Rat­ dule of- the.Constitution• - ! on the. following grounds. nakar Chopdekar and Vinaykumar Usgaonkar, declared a split in the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party and constitu­ ,1. The, .resp~>nd~t Shri Dhar.ma V. Chodankar, MLA', atten­ ted a separate party known as "Maharashtrawadi Gomanta~ ded the. _Session .of the held on Party", (Ravi Naik Group) at a me,eting held on 24-12':90 at 13-12-91 to 27~3-i991 but voted contrary to, the dil;:,ectives the residence of Shri Ravi Naik at Ponda. issued by- M. G. Party (Ravi: Naik Group) thereby the res­ pondent has incurred .. disqualification under para 2(1), (a) &. The petitioner states that the other members of t,he Legis.­ .,(b) of the Tenth Schedule' o~ the Constitution' of India. lative Assembly constituted a split has confirmed that th6 414 OFFICIAL G~ETTE - GOVT. OF GOA !E_R_IE~_1l_No_._3_0 ______( EXTRAORDIN~1:.J ______2_7_T_H_._OCTOBER. 1994

fact in the -replies filed by them as well as in their affida-­ is not awar~ and does not admit that the fictitious Leader vits in the matter "of reference Nos, 3/91, 4/91, 5/91, 6/91 as of the MGP (Ravi,_Naik Group) has submitted' any informa­ well as in the review application filed by Shri Ravi S. Naije tio~ to Hon. Speaker or about _the Constitution of the alleged and S/Shri Ratnakar Chopdekar and Sanjay Bandekar. split .party on 12-2.1-991 or in a prescribed' form on 18-2-1991 . The -petitioner further states that subsequently the respon­ The respondent, states that the purported minutes of the dent defected again from "Maharashtr~'vadi Gomantak Party" alleged meetiI1.g of 24-12·1990 are bogus and fabricated much (Ravi Naik Group) and joined "MaJiarasht:rawadi Gomantak. later. The purported signatures on the minutes have been Party". The respondents has even oo.nfirmed the position of obtained much later, after 24-12-1-99-0. The respondent's signa­ his subsequently being in the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak tures was forcibly procured on 14-1-1991. Neither the name Party (-Ravi Naik Group) in his letter dated 14~1-l992 addres. nor the signature- of the respondent nor of Shri Vinaykumar sed to H. E. the Governor of Goa with a copy thereof addres­ Usgaonkar appear on the alleged MGP meeting on 24-12-1990. sed to the Hon. Speaker. Thus the respondent has voluntarily Shri Vinaykumar Usgaonkar was with the MGP at -least as: given up the membership of the Ma;harashtrawadi Gomantak late 'as on 31-1-1991 as witness,es his signatures on the minu­ Party, (Ravi Naik Group) and has- incurred disqualification. tes of the meetings. The parties filed their draft issues out of under para 2 (1) (a) & (b) of the Tenth Schedul~. which the following were treated as the prel1Ininary issues: The Petitioner states that the Leader of the M. G. P; -Party 1) Whether the respondent proves that the petition is (Ravi-Naik Group) has submitted the information to the Hon. liable too be dismissed in limine for -laches, delay and limI­ Speaker about the Constitution of split in the party on tation. 12-2-91 and again in the prescribed'form on 18-2-1991. 2) Whether the respondent proves that the petition is The petitioner further states that the M. G. p. (Ravi: Naik liable to be dismissed in limine for 'non~compliance with Group) issued whip which was published in'the daily news­ . the provision of disqualification on ground.of defectiol! rules paper calling upon the members' of"M. G. P. (Ravi Natk and especially absence of verification of the petition and Group) to, attend the Session of the House and vote in acco.r­ dance with the directives of the M. G. Party (Ravl, Naik documents accompanying it. Group). The respondent, attended the session of the Legisla­ ,g) \Vhether the respondent proves 'that the annexures tive Assembly held on 13-2-1991 to 27·3-1991 but voted are not verified.in the prescribed manner. ~ntra~y to' the dire~tiv~s issued by the M. G. Party_ (Ravl ~a:lk Group). The -~~'pondent therefo~e has incurred, disqua­ 4) Whether: the respondent proves that the petition 1s­ lification under para 2(1) (a) & (b) of the Tenth Schedule liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground that M. G.P. to the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioner, (Ravi Naik Group) is not and was never in existence and ~:that .no- prior pe~ssion was obtained f9r such act nor the the petitioner therefore has no locus standi to file the peti­ same was condoned by the M. G. Party (Ravi Naik- Group). tion for disqualification. In the- circumstances the petitioner is satisfied and has rea.. sonal)ie ground~ to _believe that the respondent _ha,s_ become While arguing the issue No.1 the learned council for the ~bject to disqualification ullder the' Tenth Schedule. - respondent Shri Ramakant D. Khalap stated that the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine for laches. delay and limita­ , The petitioner therefore submits ~t th~' re~~~dent -has tion.· He referred t~e judgements <;>f the High Court of Judi­ Incurred disqualification Under para 2(1) (a) & (b) of Tenth cature of B,ombay, -Goa Bench, in the writ petition Nos. 8 Schedule -of' the" Constitu~ion of India for, being_ a member of of 1992 and 11 of 1992 first of which was filed against Shri the'House. Sanjay Bandekar and Shri Ratnakar Chopdekar by Shri Ramakant -D. Khalap, petitioner and the second was filed by , The respondent filed his comments on 27-2-1992 and stated Dr. Kashinath Jhalmi and Shri Ramakant D, Khalap, petitio­ therein 'that' the petition is barred by laches/limitation and is ners agafnst Shri Ravi S. Naik, in these judgement of the High Court has held that the petitions are not liable on the ~tlated by p~lit~CaJ. bias and malafides. ground of delay and laches. He quoted, paragraph 23 of the wrtt petition No. 11 of 1992 judgement dated 4th February, The' ~e'spondent denies that along with the petitioner or any 1992, where it was' held by High Court, taking into considera­ other Members of the, Legislative Assembly belonging to the tion- the abOve mentioned facts- and submissions, we are of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party or S/Shri Ravi S. Naik, opinion that by not challenging the order of the Deputy Speaker ShaDkar Salgaonltar, Sanjay Bazidekar, Ratnakar Chopdekar, dated 7th and 8th March, 1S91 within reasonable time by Vinaykumar Usgaonltar and the respondent declared a split taking the role of silent spectator at the time of the order of in M. G. P. or constituted- a separate party known as Mah,a~_ dismissal dated 22nd April, 1991, writ petition No. 48 of 1991 taslitrawadi Gomantak Party (Ravi Nail{.Group). He further the petitioners by their conduct are stop'ped from challenging denies that there was any split in the M. G. P. and the res­ the impunged order. of the Deputy Speaker dated 7th & 8th pondent is riot at all aware and does not admit that any meet­ March, 1991. Th~ identical point in both the cases is that after ing took place on 24th December, 1'990 at ,the residence of, the date which is alleged that the cause of action arose, the Shri Ravi S. Naik or was attended by S/Shri Gurudas Malik _petitioner remained silent without taking any action for a or Avinash Bhonsle or any' other members of the M._ G. P. considerable long peri,od ~nd further he has not explained his reasons for the delay. According to the petitioner, the The respondent stat~s that the purported split in the MGP cause- ()f action arose on 14-1-1991, when the respondent claimed by S/Shri Ravi S. Naik, Shankar Salgaonkar, Ashok came back to the original M. _G. P. Party. There is no -r~ Naik Salgaonkar, Sanjay Bandekar, Ratnakar Chopdekar, limit p.rescribed to file the petition in- the Tenth Schedule Vinaykumar Usgaonkar and the petitioner is fictitious' and of the Constitution of India. that the affidavits, allegedly filed by them in the matter of references Nos. 3/91, 5/91: 4/91, 6/91 as also purported review Shri argued the issue No. 2 and 3' as application filed by Shri Ravi S. Naik and S/Shri Ra~ar regard verification of the petition and the documents accom­ Chopdekar and Sanjay Bandekar are false. ' p~nying it and also stated further tha~ the. annexures are ''"'The respondent states that in the morning of 14th January not verified in the prescribed manner: Verification must be f991 'the respondent was gheraoed by S/Shri Ravi- S. Naik, there in the affidavit, otherwise no annexures Can stand. . ,Shankar K. Salgaonkar and t.he pet!tioner, MLAs at Ribandar and under dUress forced him to sign on a paper purporting to The counsel f-or the respondent submitted'that the petitio­ -cl!1f1n'~, split in the MGP Leg:'slature Party. The respondent ners statements in the respective paras made by him in th.8 ~~re~o:J;e,addressed a letter on 14-1-1991 to the Hon. Speaker plaint aI).d while yerifying the same, stated that whatever ~~,' i¥~o' the Governor of Goa of the 'said action of S/Shri statements made by him in the plaint are true to his own .~11 ,~. Naik, Shal,ikar K. Salgaonkar and the petitioner and knowledge. Even some of the legal submissions have been ",t!t~,:,,:~~ponden,t pledg!ng his continued support to the 'MGP termed by the p~tit:'oners that they are true to his own .-~d';~llx:1 R.- D. Kltalap, the. Leader of the MGP Party. The knowledge. The' prayer made in the petition has also been. ~r:Jp()ndent 'denies ;that there is any Party known as MGP stated that it'is true to h:s own knowledge. Therefore, the (~Yr-~~-;'.Group) or that the respondent was at any time counsel laid stress that it was a bad and the faulty verifica­ ~t~-Me,:tp.ber.""He ~urther denies that he defected from the cation and therefore_ prayed the petition is Eable to be dis­ fictit1ous

Rule 6 of the Members of the Goa Legislative Assembly wherein time was prescribed for particular act. The eo:ntention (Disqualification on groWlds of Defection) Rules, 1986 speaks of the counsel . was that jn the absence of the prescribed -how the petition'is to be fil~d. No reference for- any question period, the Limitation_ Act. comes ~to force and the only as to whether a member ,has became subject to disqualifica. sections that may' be applicable here is 133 or 137 of the tion under the Tenth Schedule shall be, made accept by ~ peti­ limitation Act. -In both sections the liInitation prescribed is tion in relation to'such member in accordance with the provi­ three years. He further submitted that two judgements, on sion of this rule._ No refevence for any question as to whether which the respondent relied upon are not at all applicable in -a meinber has become subject to disqualification under the this case beca use that is on totally. different footing this is Tenth Schedule shall be made except by a petition in rela~ the petition filed before the Speaker and in the other petition. tion to such meniber in accordance with the provision of this Wherein _the order has been passed about the laches being' rule. fatal to the filing of the petition, that the leader of the MGP (Ravi Naik Group) has submitted the information to- the Every petition (a) shall 'contain a conciSe stat~Plent C?f Hon. Speaker about the constitution of split party on 12-2-1991 the material facts on which the 'petitioner relies (b) shall be and again in prescribed fOt:lll on 18-2-1991. accompanied by copies, of the_ documentary evidende if any, on which the petitioner relies and where petitioner relies The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the verifi­ on any information as furnished by each such person. He cation dolie by him is proper. According to him that even pointed out in the petition certain infonnation given -is otherwise assUming that it is not proper, it is not fatal. It . obtained from a particular source. In the verification it can be cured. ,should have·been'stated under para 6(b). Then vide rule (6) of the Rules every petition shall be signed by the petitioner , While reply-ing to the point raiseet.. by' the counsel for the and verified in th,e manner laid down in the Code of Civil respondent regarding the 'improper verification the counsel for Procedure, 190-8 (Central Act 5 of 1908) for v.erification of the petitioner stated that the other members the Legislative pleadings. The Rule (7) every an,nexures to the petition of shan be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same Assembly who constituted a split have confirmed the fact into replies filed by them as well as in- their affidavit in manner as the petition. This is li\.ccorOing to Rule ~ sub-rule 7. the matter of reference Nos. 3/91, 4/91, 5/91, 6/91 as well On receipt of the petition under Rule 6, the Speaker shall as in the' review application filed by Shri Rav'i S. Naik, and S/Shri Ratnakar Cnopd'ekar and Sanjay Bandekar. The consider whether the .petition complies to. the requir~t of this Rule 6(2). If the petition does not. comply WIth the petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely upon the said requisite requirements of the rules, the Speaker shall dismiss proceedings before Hon. Speaker. As-, far as knowing the the petition and intimate the petitioner accordingly. So the same to his own knowledge is concerned, the counsel submit­ verification and the ,annexures is mandatory under Rule 6. ted that they have been part of the proof, everything which In -support of his' contention the counsel for the respondent was done on one table. He.'fUrther contended that they know relied ,on the two orders passed by Hon. Speaker Shri Surendra. what. ,affidavits have been fiied by them and they stood by Sirsat dated 18-12-90 filed by Shrt Domnick Fernand~ & them and that they stand by their statement that they know versus six members of the Legislative Assembly and second what was sworn'in. These affidavits so to say what they know dated 6-2-1991 filed by Shri Mohan Amshekar, versus six fs nothing bad at all in that. 'They very- much know about, that. members of the Legislative AsseIl"':bly. He 'further contended that if the petition is sign~d by a To The counsel for the respondent referred to the para 11 of lawyer and it is not verified it is not fatal. lay stress on the petition wherein the petitioner stated therein that he his argument he referred to the Supre-m,e Oourt's decision 1964' wishes to place on record that subsequently Maharashtrawadi page 1545-Representation at People's Act (1951) 8ec. 82. Act Gomantak, Party (Ravi Naik Group) has merged into (1951) 8. 83(1) (O)-Election Petition-Veriticatihn detect I .. COngress (I). And _.in respondent's amendment to hiS. reply -Defect 02n be cured~t is not fatal to Election Petition.. a specific averment was made in para 4 A

He further contended that any member can ,file a petition On the poi~t of 'annexures the photocopies of' which are in writing· to the Speaker, there need n'ot be a group whether filed by the petitioner. The counsel states that the originals it is M. G. P. (Ravi Naik Group) or not and therefore he will be 'provided at the time- of evidence and he was not bound ouated Rule 2 sub-rule 6 of (The Member Disqualification on to give -the orig~nal at this stage. The annexur_es are at­ the ground of Defection Rules) 1986. According to the r~spon­ tested by the notary after seeing the orig-inaJs. He further dent they did not recognise MGP (Ravi Naik Group) at all and stated that the petition can be filed without a' document th-ey say that there was no such group. But the counsel for also. the petition argued further and referred to the matter before the Election Commission for claiming _the symbol and the " After hearing the facts and submissions. made by both" the same was contested by the MGP and to, that there is a spea.,. parties my findings are.as foIlows:- king order, of the: Election Commiss!on which was' decided 1n MGP's favour. He turther stated that on the date when the As regards the issue No. 1 regarding laches, delay, defection took-place there was MGP (Ravi Naik Group) and and limitation I fail to understand why this petition has be-en the respondent defected from MGP (Ravt Nalk Group). filed after a period of one year, in the entire petition _there is not even single statement made regarding the cause for The counsel' for, the petitioner referred to para 7 of the delay of filing petition after a period of one year. The res­ petition on the other- hand' the counsel for the petitioner pondent _in th:s case went back, to the original party MGP submittea that ·there is no limitation prescribed to file such after defecting from the MGP (Ravi Naik Group) on 14-1~1991 i;ype of petition. For this,' he cited Rule 3,. 4 and 6 of the and the said petition has been filed by the petitioner on Member Dlsquallf,lcatlon' on Grounds of Defection RuIes 9~1--1!992_that is after a period of one year. I find that there

44 416 OFFICIAL GAZETTE - OOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 30 ( EXTRAORDINARY) 27TH OCTOBER, 1991, has been a deliberate and a intentional delay in filing the . called MGP (Rav!.NaiI< Group) together with all its so called petition and the said petition 'has been filed after the writ Members, including th~ petitioner _ ht;:rein_ have meI'ged or­ petition in the High Court against Shri Ravi Nail< and two joined the Indian National Congress-I, MGP (RaVi Naik. other Members were. filed and· after the Supreme Court's Group') _ does not exists and hence the -petition has no locus judgement on para-7 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution standi and the cause of action against the respondent herein. of India. Thoug'h the. case merits elucidating evidence to To this averment no replies has been filed- by the petitioner. verify certain facts -I find that no purpose will be served as the. petitioner is at fault for not filing this petition on the There was a party called M.G.P. (Rav! Nailt Group) after date of cause of action, hence this issue is decided against the split in the original M. G. P. and the whole M: G.-P. (Rav1 the petitiQner~ . Naik Group) joined the Congress-I together with aU its mem... , bers including the petitioner herein and M. G. P. (Ravi Naik As regards issue No.2 &.3, the para (6) of Tenth Schedule Group) was· no more in existence, hence there was no group of the Tenth Sched¢e states that -every petition shall be existing at the time of filing this petition hence the iSsue is­ signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down answered against the petitioner. in the Code of Civil Procedu,re Code 1008 (Central Act 5- of .1908) for verification of pleadings. Then para. (7) of Tenth Therefore my findings to the issues at 1, 2, 3 and 4- are Schedule every annexures to the petition shall be signed by answered in the' affirmative. the petitioner and verified in the same manner as th~ pet!.. I therefore, dismiss the petition. No, order as to costs. tion. 'Pte verification of the petition and, the' annexures is mandatory -under Rule-6. The petitioner hiinself has not filed ( SHAIKH HASSAN. HAROON) any a+fidavit in this case and in the verification the petitio­ ner has relied on annexures,- the . annexures should be verified" Speaker in' the same manner a.s the petition is verified. Panaji-Goa The pititioner in his verification has stated that the state.. Dated: 22nd October; 1-994. ments 1. e. his averments made by hiril in the forgoing paras To: are true to his own knowlec;lge~ mven some Of the' legal sub ... 't mission. averted in his~ plaint has, been sald_'~t its, true. to 1) Shri Dharma Chodankar, MLA. his own knowledge. ,Therefore the v~rification of the petitio.. ner _is bad and faulty and it is, also n_ot. in acco~ance' with 2) Shri Pandurang D.Raut, MLA. the Oode of Civil Procedure Code. This issue is also answe.. 3) Shri Ramakant D. Khalap, Leader of Maharashtra-· red 'against the petltio.her., As regards issue No.4 'the petitio:­ wadi Gomantak Party, Panaji4Joa. ner_,.have_ already sta~ed ,ln para 11 of the pe~tion ~at the, 4) Secretary, Chief Election Commission of India. petitioner wishes to place on ,record that subseq~ently Matta_.. _ -5) Chief Secretary, Government -of G~a, Panaji Goa. rashtrawad! Gomantak Party (Ravi Naik. Group) has mer­ ged intO

GOVT. PRIN'l'lNG PRESS - GOA . (Imprens.a NacloJml- Goa) PRICE R,., 2-00