PANAJI, 21TH OCTOBER, 1994 lKARTIKA 5, 1916) I SERIES " No. 30 . - .......... ~, . -. I;~~"'\ . .' OFFICIAL~ GAZETTE GOVERNMENT .OF GOA -' ·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-. "Indian National Congress" ·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 (Ravi Naik' 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 Goa Legislative Assembly 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.