(1.) This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.11.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)6335/ 2000. The matter relates to disqualification of an MLA under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The operative portion of the stay order is quoted below:
(2.) The brief facts are as follows: One Amutombi Singh, an MLA filed an application before the Speaker of the 7th Legislative Assembly of the State of Manipur to disqualify the present writ petitioner on the ground of defection. His case was that this writ petitioner along with 3 others were elected as MLA of NCR Thereafter, 7th Legislative Assembly of the State of Manipur was notified first on 1.3.2000 and on that date itself by another notification, the 6th Legislative Assembly of the State of Manipur was dissolved and on the basis of the notification issued regarding constitution of the house on 1.3.2.000, this writ petitioner became an MLA entitled to all the rights and privileges as MLA and on 4.3.2000, this writ petitioner along with 2 others, had a split from the original party and they formed another party in the name and style of 'NCP(O)' and this split was notified to the Speaker of the 6th Legislative Assembly, who according to the writ petitioner was:still in the office in view of the 2nd proviso to Article 179 of the Constitution of India. (It may be stated here in that the earlier Speaker Babu Dhan Singh was not elected as MLA in the 7th Legislative Assembly of the State of Manipur). Whether he continues to be a Speaker or not under the 2nd proviso to Article 179 of the Constitution of India, that may not be relevant for determining the controversy in the present case, yet we looked to that aspect of the matter. On 4.3.2000 under Article 188 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Manipur issued a notification appointing Rishang Keishing as the person on his behalf to take oath of affirmation according to the form set out for this purpose: in the 3rd Schedule. Thereafter, on 7.3.2000 the Governor of Manipur issued another notification under Article 180(1) of the Constitution of India appointing Rishang Keishing as the Protem Speaker and the first session of the Assembly was held on 8.3.2000. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, let us have a look at Clause 3 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and that is quoted below:
(3.) So, if there is a split in the party according to Clause 3 of the Tenth Schedule, the question of disqualification does not arise. In this particular case as indicated above, there were 4 members in the original party and out of it, 3 members formed a new party. Prima facie, it appears that this writ petitioner cannot be deemed to be disqualified in view of the Clause 3 of the Tenth Schedule quoted above. Further, it is the case of the writ petitioner that subsequently there was a merger of this newly formed party i.e. NCP(O) with MSCP. This split was recognised by Babu Dhan Singh, the Speaker of the 6th Legislative Assembly by an order on 6.3.2000 and thereafter the present Speaker (Respondent No. 2) recognised the split and the merger and bulletin was issued on 11.4.2000 and after having recognised the split and merger, the present Speaker (Respondent No. 2) issued order disqualifying the writ petitioner showing that there was fraud on the part of the writ petitioner and he was misled. Whether this question of fraud and misleading is correct or not, that will be the subject matter of the original writ application. Prima facie, we are satisfied that there was a split in the original party and there was also a merger. So, this disqualification on the face of the materials referred to above does not arise. So, prima facie, this writ petitioner had a case to go for trial. There are some bonafide grounds which require scrutiny of the Court. Further the balance of convenience and or irreparable loss and injury are on the side of the writ petitioner. So, on the basis of the materials, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge correctly granted a stay in this matter. Further, it appears; that this matter with regard to this Court is not res integra inasmuch(as no doubt from the State of Manipur), this Court earlier granted stay order in CR 5049/94 (M. Maniher Singh-Vs- Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors.) and in CR 5185/94 (W. Nipamacha Singh & Ors.-Vs-Speaker, Manipur L.A. Imphal & Ors.).