SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYversusUTKAL KESHARI PARIDA

                        [2013] 1 S.C.R. 348


A         SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
                               v.
                  UTKAL KESHARI PARIDA
                (Civil Appeal No. 469 of 2013)
                        JANUARY 17, 2013
B
        [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, J. CHELAMESWAR AND
                  VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

      Orissa Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground
C of Defection) Rules, 1987:

        rr. 6(1) and (2) - Petition for disqualification of Members
  of Legislative Assembly on ground of defection, filed by a
  person, who was President of State Unit of political party but
0 was not a Member of Legislative Assembly - Held: Is
  maintainable - Although, sub-r. (2) of r. 6 provides that a
  petition in relation to a Member for the purposes of sub-r. (1)
  may be made in writing to the Speaker by any other Member,
  such a provision is neither contemplated nor provided for in
  the Tenth Schedule itself - In a case where all the four
E Members elected to the Assembly from the political party
  concerned, changed their allegiance from the said party to the
  ruling party, there would be no one to bring such fact to the
  notice of the Speaker and ask for disqualification of the said
  Members - Therefore, provisions of sub-rr. (1) and (2) of r. 6 .
F have to be read down to make it clear that not only a Member
  of the House, but any person interested, would also be entitled
  to bring to the notice of the Speaker the fact that a Member
  of the House had incurred disqualification under the Tenth
  Schedule -Constitution of India, 1950 - Tenth Schedule -
G Para 2(1)(a), 6 and 8 - Interpretation of Statutes - Reading.
  down a provision - Locus standi.
        Constitution of India, 1950:

H                               348
  SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY v.               349
           UTKAL KESHARI PARIDA
     Tenth Schedule - Provisions as to disqualification on A
ground of defection - 52nd Amendment - Intent and objects
of - Explained.

    Administrative Law:

     Delegated legislation - Orissa Legislative As'\Sembly 8
(Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1987 - Held:
Being subordinate legislation, the Rules could not rriake any
provision which could have the effect of curtailing the content
and scope of the substantive provision, namely, the Tenth
Schedule to the Constitution of India, as otherwise, the vety C
object of the introduction of the Tenth Schedule to the
Constitution would be rendered meaningless - Constitution .
of India, 1950 - Tenth Schedule - Para 2(1)(a), 6 and 8 -
Orissa Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of
Defection) Rules, 1987 - rr. 6(1) and (2) - Doctrine of reading D
down.

    Consequent upon all the four elected members of the
National Congress Party (NCP) in the Orissa Legislative
Assembly joining the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), i.e., the ruling E
party in the State, the respondent-President of the State
Unit of NCP filed four petitions before the appellant-
Speaker of the House seeking disqualification of the said
elected members of NCP on ground of defection.
According to the respondent, since the matter was being F
delayed, he filed a writ petition before the High Court for
a direction to the Speaker to dispose of the
disqualification petitions expeditiously. On the strength
of sub-r. (2) of r. 6 of the Orissa Legislative Assembiy
(Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1987, an
objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the G
writ petition at the instance of the respondent, who
though being the President of the State Unit of the NCP,
was not a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The High
Court overruled the objection.
                                                             H
    350      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 1 S.C.R.

A         Dismissing the appeals, the Court

         HELD: 1.1. Although, sub-r. (2) of r. 6 of the Orissa
    Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of
    Defection) Rules, 1987 provides that a petition in relation
    to a Member for the purposes of sub-r. (1) may be made
8
    in writing to the Speaker by any other Member, such a
    provision is neither contemplated nor provided for in the
    Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. In a case
    such as this,
               r
                    where all the four Members elected to the
    Assembly from the National Congress Party had changed
C   their allegiance from the National Congress Party to the
    Biju Janata Dal, there would be no one to bring such fact
    to the notice of the Speaker and ask for disqualification
    of the said Members. This was not the intent of or the
    object sought to be achieved by the 52nd Amendment by
D   which the Tenth Schedule was introduced in the
    Constitution. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of
    the Bill, which finally became the Constitution (52nd
    Amendment) Act, 1985, whereby the Tenth Schedule was
    added to the Constitution with effect from 1st March,
E   1985, inter alia, indicated that the evil of political defection
    had become a matter of national concern and if it was not
    checked, it CO!Jld very well undermine the very
    foundation of our democracy and the principles which
    sustain the same. In such event, if the provisions of the
F   Tenth Schedule are interpreted to exclude the right of any
    person interested to bring to the notice of the Speaker
    of the House the fact that any or some of its Members had
    incurred disqualification from the membership of the
    House on any of the eventualities indicated in paragraphs
G   2 and 4 therein, it would render the inclusion of the Tenth
    Schedule to the Constitution otiose and defeat the
    objects and intent of the 52nd Amendment of the
    Constitution. [para 16-17] [359-C-H; 360-A-C]

          1.2. Although, paragraph 8 of the Tenth Schedule to
H
  SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY v.               351
           UTKAL KESHARI PARIDA
the Constitution of India vests the Speaker of the House A
with powers to make rules for giving effect to the
provisions of the Tenth Schedule, the Rules framed under
such powers would amount to delegated legislation
which cannot override the substantive provisions of the
Constitution contained in the Schedule itself. The B
provisions of sub-rr. (1) and (2) of r. 6 of the 1987 Rules
cannot override the provisions of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the
Tenth Schedule to the Constitution or for that matter,
paragraph 6 which vests the Speaker of the House with
the authority to decide the question as to whether a c
Member of a House had become subject to
disqualification under the Schedule. The Rules being in
the domain of procedure, were intended to facilitate the
holding of an inquiry and not to frustrate or obstruct the
same by the introduction of innumerable technicalities.
                                                            0
Being subordinate legislation, the Rules could not make
any provision which could have the effect of curtailing the
content and scope of the substantive provision, namely,
the Tenth Schedule, as otherwise, the very object of the
introduction of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution
would be rendered meaningless. [para 16,18 and 19) [359- E
A-C; 360-F-H; 361-A]

    Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar
Legislative Council and Others 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 692 =
(2004) 8 sec 747- relied on.                                    F

     Kihoto Hol/ohan v. Zachil/hu and Others, 1992 (1) SCR
686 = 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651; Rajendra Singh Rana and
Others v. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others 2007 (2)
 SCR 591= (2007) 4 SCC 270; Prakash Singh Badal v. Union G
of India, AIR 1987 P & H 263 - referred to.

    1.4. The provisions of sub-rr. (1) and (2) of r. 6 of the
1987 Rules have, therefore, to be read down to make it
clear that not only a Member of the House, but any
person interested, would also be entitled to bring to the       H
    352       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013} 1 S.C.R.


A   notice of the Speaker the fact that a Member of the House
    had incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule
    to the Constitution. On receipt of such information, the
    Speaker of the House would be entitled to decide under
    paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule as to whether the
B   Member concerned had, in fact, incurred such
    disqualification and to pass appropriate orders on his
    findings. The judgment of the High Court is upheld. [pc.ra
    19-20] [361-A-C]

                           Case Law Reference:
c
      2004 (5) Suppl. SCR692             Relied on          Para 5

      1992 (1) SCR 686                   referred to        para 5

      2007 (2) SCR 591                   referred to        para 5
D                                                           para 5
      AIR 1987 P & H 263                 referred to

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 469
    of 2013.

E       From the Judgment & Order dated 27 .09.2012 of the High
    Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 14869 of 2012.

                                  WITH

    C.A. Nos. 470, 471 & 472 of 2013.
F
          K.K. Venugopal, Pitamber Acharya, Raj Kumar Mehta,
    Antaryami Upadhyay, Raj iv Ranjan Pathak, David, Ankur Talwar
    for the Appellant.

        Amrendera Sharan, Amit Anand Tiwari, Rajiv Yadav,
G   Ashutosh Jha for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. Leave granted.

H         2. These Appeals raise an interesting issue relating to the
  SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY v.                  353
 UTKAL KESHARI PARIDA [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI .]

powers of the Speaker of the Orissa Legislative Assembly A
under Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Members of Orissa Legislative
Assembly (Disqualification On Ground Of Defection) Rules,
1987, hereinafter referred to as "the 1987 Rules", in the wake- -
of paragraphs 2(1 )(a) and 8 of the Tenth Schedule to the
Constitution of India and are taken up together for disposal. The B
facts giving rise to the said legal question are set out
hereinbelow.

     3. The Appellant herein is the Speaker of the Orissa
Legislative Assembly. There were four elected members of the C
National Congress Party (NCP) in the Orissa Legislative
Assembly. All the said four elected members of the NCP joined
the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), which is the Ruling Party in the State
of Orissa. On account of such defection, Respondent, Shri Utkal
Keshari Parida, who is the President of the State Unit of the
NCP in the State of Orissa, filed four separate Disqualification D
Petitions before the Appellant for disqualification of the said four
elected members of the NCP. The Disqualification Petitions
were placed before the Appellant on 24.07.2012 and copies
thereof were forwarded to the concerned Members of the
Legislative Assembly, in terms of Rule 7(3) of the 1987 Rules. E

     4. Inasmuch as, the matter was being delayed, the
Respondent filed Writ Petition (C) No. 14S69 of 2012, before
the Orissa High Court, inter alia, for a direction to the Speaker
of the Assembly to dispose of the Disqualification Petitions F
expeditiously. Before the Division Bench of the said High Court,
an objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the Writ
Petition at the instance of the Respondent, who though being
the President of the State Unit of the NCP, was not a Member
of the Legislative Assembly, in view of the, provisions of Sub- G
rule (2) of Rule 6 of the 1987 Rules. Rule 6 of the 1987 Rules,
which is relevant for out purpose, is extracted hereinbelow:

    "6 (1) No reference of any question as to whether a
    Member has become subject to disqualification under the
    Tenth Schedule shall be made except by a petition in H
    354       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 1 S.C.R

A         relation to such Member made in accordance with the
          provisions of this rule.

          (2) A petition in relation to a Member may be made in
          writing to the Speaker by any other Member:

B               Provided that a petition in relation to the Speaker
          shall be addressed to the Secretary.

           (3) The Secretary shall:-

          (a) as soon as may be after the receipt of a petition under
c         the proviso to sub-rule (2) make a report in respect thereof
          to the House ; and

            (b) as soon as may be after the House has elected a
            Member in pursuance of the proviso to sub-paragraph (1)
D         · of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule place the petition
            before such Member.

          (4) Before making any petition in relation to any Member,
          the petitioner shall satisfy himself that there are reasonable
          grounds for believing that a question has arisen as to
E
          whether such Member has become subject to
          disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.

           (5) Every petition:

F               (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material
          facts on which the petitioner relies; and

          (b) shall be accompanied by copies of the documentary
          evidence, if any, on which the petitioner relies and where
          the petitioner relies on any information furnished to him by
G         any person, a statement containing the names and
          addresses of such persons and the gist of such information
          as furnished by each such person.

           (6) Every petition shall be signed by the petitioner and
H          verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil
  SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY v.                   355
 UTKAL KESHARI PARIDA [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
     Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the verification of<--A
     pleadings.

    (7) Every annexure to the petition shall also be signed by
    the petitioner and verified in the same· manner as the
    petition."
                                                                    B
    5. Relying on the interpretation of the aforesaid Rule in the
judgment delivered by this Court in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad
Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and Others,
[(2004) 8 sec 747], the High Court came to the conclusion that
the Writ Petition was maintainable at the instance of the C
Respondent herein. While arriving at such conclusion, the High
Court also took into consideration the decision in Kihoto
Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others, [1992 Supp (2) SCC 651]
and the provisions of Article 191 read with paragraph 2 of th.e
Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India.                    D
     ·6. Interpreting the provisions of Rule 6 of the 1987 Rules,
the High Court also took into consideration the judgment of this
Court' in Rajendra Singh Rana and Others v. Swami Prasad
Maurya and Others, [(2007) 4 SCC 270], in which reference E
 had been made to another decision in the case of Prakash
Singh Badal v. Union of India, [AIR 1987 P&H 263). On a
consideration of the said two decisions and the other decisions
already referred to hereinbefore, the High Court came to the
conclusion that it was abundantly clear that if any Member of
the House belonging to a political party had joined another F
political party, which is a disqualification under paragraph 2(1)
of the Tenth Schedule, any person interested could make a
reference to the Speaker under Rule 6 of the 1987 Rules and
it was not necessary that such a reference had to be made by
a Member of the Legislative Assembly. On its aforesaid finding, G
the High Court rejected the contentions made on behalf of the
Appellant and held that the same were maintainable under Rule
6 of the 1987 Rules. ·
    7. This Appeal has been preferred by the Speaker of the . H
    356     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A   Orissa Legislative Assembly questioning the aforesaid decision
    of the High Court.

       8. Appearing in support of the Appeals, Mr. K.K.
  Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the High
  Court had wrongly interpreted the provisions of Sub-rules (1)
8
  and (2) of Rule 6 of the 1987 Rules in arriving at the erroneous
  conclusion that the Disqualification Petitions under Rules 6 and
  7 of the 1987 Rules could be made not only by Members of
  the House, but by any interested person also. Mr. Venugopal
  urged that the language of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the 1987
C Rules clearly indicates that it is only a Member of the House,
  who in relation to a petition for disqualification of another
  Member, could apply to the Speaker. Mr. Venugopal urged that
  giving any other interpretation to the said provisions would do
  violence to and be contrary to the intention contained in Rule 6
D of the 1987 Rules. Mr. Venugopal urged that after the impugned
  judgment was delivered by the High Court, the matter was
  referred by the Speaker to the Committee of Privileges of the
  House on 15.10.2012 under Rule 7(4) of the 1987 Rules. The
  meeting of the said Committee was convened on 22.12.2012,
E but no business could be conducted in the meeting on account
  of lack of quorum.

       9. On 2.1.2013, a meeting of the Committee of Privileges
  was convened to finalise the modalities for hearing of the
F Disqualification Petitions filed on behalf of the Respondent.
  However, before the matter came to be decided by the
  Committee of Privileges, the Special Leave Petition was filed
  to set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa
  High Court holding that the Disqualification Petitions were
G maintainable at the instance of a non-Member of the House.

         10. Mr. Venugopal urged that in the light of the explicit
    language used in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the 1987 Rules,
    framed by the Speaker of the Assembly under paragraph 8 of
    the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, the High Court was
H   clearly wrong in interpreting the said provisions so as to allow
      SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY v. 357
     UTKAL KESHARI PA~IDA [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI .]
   an application for disqualification of a Member of the House              A
   to be made by a person who was not a Member thereof. Mr.
   Venugopal submitted that the Order of the High Court was
   contrary to the provisions of law and was liable to be set aside.

        11. On the other hand, Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned                 B
   Senior Advocate, who appeared for the sole Respondent who
   had made the application for disqualification of the four
   Members before the Speaker, submitted that the four MLAs
   who had been elected on the nomination of the NCP, joined
   the Biju Janata Dal on 5.6.2012, without giving any prior notice          C
 . of their intention to do so and that they had voluntarily given up
  ·the membership of the NCP by joining the BJD, thereby
   incurring disqualificatiorYas Members of the Assembly under
   para_graph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.

         12. Mr. Sharan also submitted that the action of the said           D
   four MLAs did not amount to a merger of the NCP Legislature
,. Party with the Biju Janata Dal on account of the fact that a
   merger could only be of a political party with any other political
  ·party. Mr. Sharan submitted that the ·legislature party of a
   political party by itself had no authority or power to merge with         E
   any other political party, without the merger of its original political
   party. In such circumstances, the provisions of paragraph
   2(1 )(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution were squarely
   attracted to the facts of this case and the same had merely to
   be brought to the notice of the Speaker for him to hold that the          F
   said four MLAs stood disqualified from the membership of the
   House.
      13. On the question of the locus standi of the Respondent
  to maintain the writ petition in his capacity as the President of
  the State unit of the NCP in the State of Orissa, Mr. Sharan G
  submitted that the said question was no longer res integra in
  view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Dr.
  Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra), in which reference had
  been made to a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana
  High Court in the case of Prakash Singh Badal (supra). Mr. H
    358     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 1 S.C.R.

A Sharan submitted that the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
    High Court had considered the question, which has also arisen
    in this case, and it had held that paragraph (2)(1)(a) of the Tenth
    Schedule did not contemplate or visualize that the
    disqualification incurred by a Member of the House would have
B to be brought to the notice of the Speaker only by a Member
    of the House. Mr. Sharan submitted that the Full Bench had also
    indicated that in relation to paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule,
    the only prerequisite is the existence of a question of
    disqualification of a Member. Such a question could be raised
c before the Speaker by an interested person for declaring that
    the said Member stood disqualified from being a Member of
    the House. It was in that context that in the instant case the
    Speaker had held that when any Member belonging to a
  . political party joined another political party, which amounted to
    disqualification under paragraph 2(1 )(a) of the Tenth Schedule,
0
    any person interested could make a reference to the Speaker
    under Rule 6 and it was not necessary that such reference
    would have to be made only by a Member of the Legislative
    Assembly. Mr. Sharan submitted, that as indicated by this Court
E in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh's case, as President, NCP,
    the Respondent had the locus standi to maintain his
    application, both before the Speaker, as well as before the High
    Court.
       14. Mr. Sharan submitted that any other interpretation given
F to the provisions of paragraph 2(1 )(a) read with Rule 6 (1) and
  (2) of the 1987 Rules, would defeat the very object and purpose
  of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
        15. On a consideration of the submissions made on behalf
  of the respective parties, we are unable to agree with the
G interpretation sought to be given by Mr. Venugopal to the
  provisions of Rule 6 of the 1987 Rules read with paragraph
  2(1 )(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution on the question
  of locus standi of the Respondent, as the President of the State
H unit of the National Congress Party in the State of Orlssa, to
    SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY v.                    359
   UTKAL KESHARI PARIDA [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI .]
 file the= application seeking disqualification of the four Members   A
 of the National Congress Party who had switched their loyalties
 to the Biju Janata Dal.
         16. Although, paragraph 8 of the Tenth Schedule vests the
    Speaker of the House with powers to make rules for giving B
    effect to the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, the Rules framed
    under such powers would amount to delegated legislation which
   cannot override the substantive provisions of the Constitution
 · contained in the Schedule itself. The provisions of Sub-Rules
   (1) and (2) of Rule 6 of the 1987 Rules cannot override the
   provisions of paragraph 2(1 )(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the C
   Constitution or for that matter, paragraph 6 which vests the
   Speaker of the House with the authority to decide the question
   as to whether a Member of a House had become subject to
   disqualification under the Schedule. Although, Rule 6(2) of the
   1987 Rules provides that a petition in relation to a Member for D
   the purposes of Sub-Rule (1) may be made in writing to the
   Speaker by any other Member, such a provision is neither
   contemplat~d nor provided for in the Tenth Schedule itself. As
   has been submitted by Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior
  Advocate for the Respondent, in a case such as this, where all E
   the four Members elected to the Assembly from the National
   Congress Party had changed their allegiance from the National
  Congress Party to the Biju Janata Dal, there would be no one
  to bring such fact to the notice of the Speaker and ask for
  disqualification of the said Members who clearly stood F
  disqualified under the provisions of the Ttinth Schedule. In other
  words, although, disqualified under paragraph 2(1 )(a) of the
  Tenth Schedule, in the absence of any application for
  disqualification to the Speaker, they would continue to function
  as Members of the Assembly, which was not the intent of or G
. the object sought to be achieved by the 52nd Amendment by
  which the Tenth Schedule was introduced in the Constitution.
     17. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill,
 which finally became the Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act,          H
    360     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A 1985, whereby the Tenth Schedule was added to the
  Constitution with effect from 1st March, 1985, inter alia,
  indicated that the evil of political defection had become a matter
  of national concern and if it was not checked, it could very well
  undermine the very foundation of our democracy and the
B principles which sustain the same. In such event, if the
  provisions of the Tenth Schedule are interpreted to exclude the
  right of any person interested to bring to the notice of the
  Speaker of the House the fact that any or some of its Members
  had incurred disqualification from the membership of the House
c on any of the eventualities indicated in paragraphs 2 and 4
  therein, it would render the inclusion of the Tenth Schedule to··
  the Constitution otiose and defeat the objects and intent of the
  52nd Amendment of the Constitution.

       18. The conundrum presented on account of the provisions
D of the Tenth Schedule in addition to Rules 6(1) and (2) of the
  1987 Rules had fallen for consideration in Dr. Mahachandra
  Prasad Singh's case (supra). Speaking for the Bench, G.P.
  Mathur, J. (as His Lordship then was), observed in paragraph
  16 of the judgment that the purpose and object of the Rules
E framed by the Chairman in exercise of power conferred by
  paragraph 8 of the Tenth Schedule was to facilitate the
  Chairman in discharging his duties and responsibilities in
  resolving any dispute as to whether the Member of the House
  had become subject to disqualification under the Tenth
F Schedule. It was also observed that the Rules being in the
  domain of procedure, were intended to facilitate the holding of
  an inquiry and not to frustrate or obstruct the same by the
  introduction of innumerable technicalities. Being subordinate
  legislation, the Rules could not make any provision which could
G have the effect of curtailing the content and scope of the
  substantive provision, namely, the Tenth Schedule.
         19. The aforesaid observation is precisely what we too
    have in mind, as otherwise, the very object of the introduction
    of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution would be rendered
H
   SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY v. 361
  UTKAL KESHARI PARIDA [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI .)
meaningless. The provisions of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 6     A
of the 1987 Rules have, therefore, to be read down to make it
clear that not only a Member of the House, but any person
interested, would also be entitled to bring to the notice ofthe
Speaker the fact that a Member of the House had incurred
disqualification under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of   B
India. On receipt of such information, the Speaker of the House
would be entitled to decide under paragraph 6 of the Tenth
Schedule as to whether the Member concerned had, in fact,
incurred such disqualification and to pass appropriate orders
on his findings.                                                   c
     20. We, accordingly, dismiss all the appeals and uphold
the judgment of the High Court impugned therein.
    21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will
be no order as to costs.                                           D
R.P.                                      Appeals dismissed.