Official Gazette Igovernment Of· Goa

I REGO. G04 Panaji, 15th February, 1991 (Magha 26, 1912) SERIES Ii No. 46 OFFICIAL GAZETTE IGOVERNMENT OF· GOA

EXTRf\O ft DIN" RY No.3

S. Naik was suffering from acute cenical spondylitif:; and GOVERNMENT OF GOA that a period of absence from duty of 10 days with effect from 5-2-91 was considered absolutely necessary for restora Legislature Department tion of his health. In the same application, Shri Ravi S. Naik, however, replied to the aIleg.ation in the petition stati?g that "in fact it is going to be the respondent's case anq claim Notificl1tion that he and several other members of the Legislative Assem-" bly belonging to M. G. Party alongwith him constituted a No. LA/A/3075/1991 group which has arisen on account of the split in the original The following decision dated 15th February. 1~91 of the political party". He further, stated that given the fact that Speaker of Legislative Asseml)ly of state of Goa glven under the Assembly was in suspended animRtion the formalities paragraph·2(1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule of the cons,titution under Tenth Schedule are required to be complied within due of India is hereby notified and published. . . course. In the said application, therefore, it was made clear "Petition under Article 191 (2) of the Conshtu that the allegation in the· petition was admitted, but, it wa~ ti'on of India by Dr. Kashinath Jhalmi, Member pleaded that there was no defection as he was protected by against Shri Ravi S. Naik, Member. the provision co:r:tail;ed in the para 3 of the 'I.'enth Schedule.

Ord.·,r 5. Being· in the hqspital and as a friend I visited him in the hospital. I found that his ailment did not prevent him from 1. Dr. Kashinath Jhalmi, :MLA of Legislative Assembly, meeting people and attending to his files. I therefore by my of the State of Goa has filed a petition against Shri Ravi S. letter dated 6-2-91 addressed to 8hri Ravi S. Naik informed Naik MLA of Legislative Assembly _ of the State of Goa him that as he has been attending many assignments he that 'Shri Ravi S. Naik, MLA Khould be declared as disquali could give instructions to his counsel and as such I granted fied for beinu the Member of the Goa Legislative Assembly him extension af time to forward his comments till 11-2-199J. under Articl: 191(2) 'Of the Constitution of India read w.ith Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India on the followmg Shri Ravi S. Naik however failed to forward his camments ground: until 5.40 p. m. on 11-2-91. I took it that he did not want (1) 8hri Ravi S. Naik. sworn himself as the Chief Mi to send further camments. Hence a letter was sent to' him nister of Goa by voluntarily giving up the Member informing him to appear before me for personal hearing on ship of M. G. Party, his 'Original party and thus l3·2-91 at 4.00 p. m. in my Chamber at Secretariat, Panaji. incurred disqualification for being the Member of It was made clear in that letter that he should prove his the House. contention that there is a split in the original party and thase who left the party with him are not less than 1/3 of 2. On receipt of the petition by Dr. Kashinath Jhalmi, the original party and that he could do it by filing affidavits MLA on 25-1-1991, I had one copy of the petition forwarded or by praducing the Members in person. to 8hri Ravi S. Naik, MLA and another to 8hri R. D. Khalap, Leader of M. G. Party on 29-1-1991 for their comments within However OD. 11-2-1991 at 5.45 p. m. Shri Rawi S. Naik sent ) 7 days from the receipt of the same vide Rule 7(3)(a) and a letter requesting for further time for the ,reasons that he 7(3) (b) of the Members of Goa Legislative Assembly (Dis is still not recovered from his illness and Doctor has advised qualification an ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 hereafter him not to look into the matter involving mental strain and called the Rules. stress and requested 3 weeks time to forward the comments. He further stressed that if the extension of time to forward 3. 8hri R. D. Khalap m.s submitted his comments within the comments is nat granted, hearing in the matter be taken the time limit i. e. on 5-2-1991. In his comments at para-9 up only after the Assembly session. Shri Khalap has stated as follows: 6. I forthwith by my reply dated 11-2·1991 addressed tf) "That Shri Ravi Naik voluntarily gave up his mem 8hri Ravi S. Naik informed him that the observation made bership of the M. G. Party as well as the M. G. P. by me in the letter dated the same date sent to' him stands Legislature Party and claimed tp have formed a and that personal hearing will take place as scheduled, separate group alongwith one Shri Gurudas Malil{ It was further stated that if he fails to attend the personal and another 8hri Avinash Bhonsale, Working Presi hearing on the date, time and place, I shall give my decision dent and Jt. Secretary of the M. G. Party with him- on the petition in his absence on the assumption that he self as the Leader". . does nut wish to' contest the same. 4. Shri Ravi S. Naik, MLA did not file his comments in 7. ·The petitioner, Dr. Kashinath Jhalmi was also informed time, instead p.e made lengthy undated application .which was that personal hearing has been fixed on 13-2-1991 at 4.00 p.m. received on 5-2-91' seeking adjournment for four weeks to in my Chamber and he should remain present for the hearing file his comments as he had been admitted to Goa Medical failing which the decision will be taken ex-parte. College Hospital On ac.count of spondylitis and 'that' the Doc tor had advised him fifteen days rest in the hospital. The S. The petitianer, Dr. Kashinath Jhalmi attended the enclosed medical certificate however stated that Shri Ravi personal hearing. Though Shri Ravi 8. Naik, respondent. 652 OFFICIAL GAZE'ITE--GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 46 (EXTRAORDINARY No.3) 15TH FEB1WARY, 1991 --_. --- --_. -~ had been discharged from the hospital and remained present U3 filr as Tenth Schedule of Constitution of India is con in the Goa Legislative Assembly for Governor's Address cerned. With regard to third, Advocate said, he has signed on 13-2-1991 at 11.00 a. m. he did not appear before me at on 24~12-1990 that he belong to the group. -With regard 4.00 p. m. on the same day, bu'; an advocate represented to giving information to the Speaker as required by the him and pleaded his case. Rules he said that the assembly was under suspension.

9. The Advocate appearing fo), Shri Ravi S. Naik on 16. When it was brought to the notice of the ~\dvocate 13-2-1991, submitted his reply in writing. In that reply he of the respondent that though Goa Legislative Assembly wa;; has again· pleaded split in the M, G. Party and has claimed kept under suspended animation, the articles of the Cons that 1/3 of the MLAs have made a separate group in the titution as regards the office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker Assembly~ In short he has taken defence under para-3 of were not suspended and both these offices were functioning the Tenth Schedule. and he could have filed the information regarding the split 10. Vlith his :ceply, he has end:)sed a photostat copy of as required under the Rules, he had no answer. Dr. Kashinatll purported resolution passed by scme Members of the M. G. Jhalmi also quoted the judgement of Shri RaN Rai, Speaker, Lok Sabha announced in the Lok Sabha on 11··1-1991 under Party at Ponda on 24-12-1990 to establish the ca~e of spilt. Tenth Schedule of the Constitution to show how split is He has enclosed another photosu:~t copy whel'ein 8 persons to be proved. claiming to be MLAs have signed that they constitute a group known as 'Ravi Naik's group of erstwhile M. G. P. 17. Shri Ravi Naik. MLA has taken shelter under para-3 MLAs. This has been signed at Panaji on 24-12-1990. It of the Tenth Schedule to protect himself fram defection. I is addressed to no one in partic.ular. Out of 8 nS.mes, 2 His case is that there was a split in the party on 24tll names are of MLAs who already disqualified as notified December 1990 at a meeting held at Ponda. A typed sheet and hence are not MLAs anymore. of paper has been produced which purports to be a resolu 11. The two questions that ~.l'ise for answer are (a) tion passed on that day. On the reverse of the typed sheet whether the alleged split is proved ~lnd (b) whether the group there are some signatures. In the typed portions there are of MLAs who have dissociated ft'om the party' constitute s;x names of which four are of MLAs including Shri H.n.vi l/S of MLAs of the original poEtical party. Naik and two of disqualified MLAs. There is no name thereof of Sl1ri Dharma Chodankar. This sheC't ;)f typed paper 12. The petitioner, Dr. Kashin8.th Jhalmi in a very clear has been brought forward on 13-2-1991. and studied manner argued that Bltri. Ravi S. Naik's defence that there was a split in the paety. and that a group of 18. 11' I were shown the notice calling j his \llecting at 1/3 party MLAs have been 'separated from the party, is Panda showing its exact venue (typed sheet dOeS not show) and the time (which also has not been shown in the typeti not proved. He submitted that the two documentsi are not to be believed and that they can be proved to be got up. sheet) and the Signatures of persons who attended that In the first place, he says that it is not enough to show meeting and minutes 'Of that meeting, there could be some resolution to have been .passed at ponda. It was necessary evideO,ce to show that such meeting had been actually held. to' show the notic~s calling for thvt meeting and the signa Dr. Kashinath Jhalmi is quite justified in his comment that tures of those Who attended that meeting and as to who in the absence of any such proof the holding of such meeting presided at that meeting etc. cannot, at all, be accepted.

13. But the mt?re important potnt he made was that if 19. So far as, I. as Speaker is conc;:rn.eci 11.. is not onl,y there was really a split in the paJ."ty and a separate group that the split is to be proved but it has to be proved by of MLAs of old MGP was formed, it was incumbent upon confirming to the Rules. Rule-3 'Of the rules has pointed the leader 'Of that group to give the information to this out by Dr. Kashinath Jhalmi requires tllat such information effect to the Hon. Speaker as :['{'quired by Rule-3 of the of the new group fonned, s_hould be given to the Speaker Rules in Form I. No such information has been furnished and that should have been given in the prescribed form. till today. He further stated that under Rule 4, each of But not only no prescribed fm'm was filled but no informa the Members of the group had to give a declaration to that lion at all was given. effect by filling Form III. Thi:, also has not been done till today. He said that in tha absence of this, I could 20. In the face or UOI.lbtful evidence repl'esen.tcd by ;\ typed sheet resolution WhICh cannot be accepted and as no not take cognisance 'Of the split and the graup. ~nformation as prescribed by the rules was given, in my 14. The Advocate of the respondent stressed that there Judg(;ment, the split in the party.is not proved. has been a· split in the original political party and the 21. Again eacll of the Members of the new group if any, respondent and other constitute 1/3 of the party and claim had to give declar8.tion in Form~3. No one has given suell that they came under the provisions of Para~3 of the Tenth information up to now. Schedule of the Constitution. ::,2, On 13~2-91 I \vas asked by Shri Ravi Naik to an'augl:: 15. When it was brought to the notice of the Advocate /'(n him separate sitting: for eight persons and onc of them of the respondent that the two of the MLAs of the alleged was Shri Dharma Chodankar. Shri Chodankar has howevel group had already been disqudified and Shri Dharma Cho~ by 1Iis letter dated 13~2-1991 clearly stated that he was dankar had intimated me on 14-1-1991 that Shri Ravi Naik !lot one of the said 8 persons and that he had n.ot left hi::; and others had obtained his signature forcibly without his original party. In tillS connection, it shOUld be remembered . consent and against his will on a paper and that even on that earlier in January 1991, Shri Chodanlmr had made a 13-2-1991 -he had addressed a letter to the Speaker regarding sitting arrangements that he_ had no connection whatsoever written complaint to me that his signature had been forcr:ably obtained on a paper. with Shri Ravi S. Naik group and that he continues to be with the original political party. The Advocate referring 23. In order to make matter casy fOl' Sliri Ravi Naik j to the disqualified _two MLAs said that there was a stay had suggested that h~ should produce bef0re me affida~it by the Court. This argument can.not help the disqualified or the members in person to support his case. He could MLAs as stay from the- court came after the order of dis haw) brought the six members in person before me 01' qualification was issued by me. Besides, recently the Par six nffidavits of those erstwhile MGP MLAs (l/3 of 16 MGP liament has held that the Speaker's order c~ot be a MLAs) ,,".'ho had join0d hIs group after thv !30 called split. subject matter 'of court proceedings and his decision is final He did not produce a single affidavit nor the persons. OFFICIAL GAZETrE·- GOVT. OF GOA 653 SERIES II No. 46 ( EXTRAORDINARY No.3) 15TH FEBRUARY, 1991

Qut of the eight signatures supposed to have been taken by 1, therefore, make the following order him at Panaji on 24-12-1990 two are the persons who were Shri Ravi S. Naik, Member of Goa i.cgislative Assembly already disqualified and oue of Shri Dharma Chodunkar \~ hereby declared as disqualified i'ronl being Member of who has stated in clear terms that he does not belong Goa Legislative Assembly under Article 1&1.(2) of the Cons to the group and he on 13-2··J 991 sat in the Assembly with titution of India on the ground of defection as set out in para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of thp Constitution of the Members of his original party. India.

24. For the above reasons, [ hold that there is no group He shall cea~e to be the Member Of the (ir);\ L(~gislHt.ive of 1'3 erstwhile MGP MLAs jn,cluding Shri Ravi Nailc Assemhly from today, the 15th February 199].

25. For all the above reasons I have to answer both ~1bove Sd questions in the negative. Th(~r.e is no evidence of any split Panaji (SUn ndriJ V. Sirsat) in the M. G. Party and Shri Havi Naik and those MI___ As who Dated: 15-2-1991 Spl'u\{er are with him do not constj,tute 1/3 of the MLAs of th!' original M. G. Party. Shri Ravi Naik is therefore is not To:

protected by Para-3 of the Tenth Schedule. 1. Shri Ra'Ji S. Naik, hILA, Chief :fo.'lini:·;te)" of GO~l. 2. Dr. Kashinath Jhulmi, MI.1A. 26. Goa's political Scena rio has best.owed upon me t.o 3. Shri R. D. Khalap, MLA. decide certain course of action, which with great patienct' '1. Secretary, Chief Election Cornmbsioll oj" india, and maximum perfection I am doing my ~)Qunden duty. Smut: New Delhi. times circumstances make y,)1.1 to perform the toughest and 5. Chief Secretary. Government of" COB., l'anaji-Goa. at the same time sorrowful act, but to preserve the demorcratie 6. Secretary to Governor, Goa." values, institution and the dignity of the House and above all the democracy itself one has to over come all the hurdle~ M. 1\1. NAIK and without. any fear 01' favour h8j' to judge the things as ASSE!vIBLY HAl ,r, Secretary to the Legislative per one's own consciousness mingled \vith facts and' the Act. PANAJI-GOA Assembly to the state of Gor... 15TH FEBRUARY, 1991.

"c.

GOVT_ PRINTING PRESS - GOA (Imprensa Nacional- Goa) PltICFl . - 0-90 Ps.