D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR.versusD. SUDHAKAR & ORS. ETC.

                   (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1272


,A                  D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR.
                                 v.
                  D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. ETC.
     (Special Leave Petition ( C ) Nos. 33333-33335 of 2010)
                        DECEMBER 16, 2010
8
         [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
                         .
          Constitution of India, 1950 - Tenth Schedule; Para 2 (2)
   - Disqualification application - Separate writ petitions by five
C independent MLAs as also eleven B.J.P. members
    challenging their disqualification from State legislative
    Assembly - Subsequently, applications.by five independent
    MLAs to amend statement made in paragraph 9 of their
    petition, that 'the petitioners had not left the B.J.P. at all, and
D substitute the same with 'petitioners have not joined B.J P. at
  . all and the evidence of the second respondent to the contrary
    are perverse and are liable to be set aside' - Application
    allowed by High Court - Interference with - Held: Not called
    for - No positive evidence was adduced to establish that the
E petitioners had at all joined the B.J.P. - The statements made
    in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions was an inadvertent error
    on account of the preparation of the two sets of writ petitions
    having similar facts - Such a statement was intended to be
    made and was made in the writ petitions filed by 11 B.J.P.
F M.L.As who had been disque.lified on the ground that they had
    left the B.J.P. and had joined another party- There was just
    one stray sentence in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions 'that
    petitioners had not left the B.J.P. at all' and the same could
    not be considered as a categorical admission if looked at
G from the context of the proceedings itself - Code of Civil
    Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI r. 17.

       Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were elected as independent
     members to the State Legislative Assembly. They

 H                                 1272
                                                       '   \



. D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR: 1 v. D. SUDHAKAR & ORS.1273
                     ETC.
                                                   \

extended support to Yeddiyurappa-B:J.P. Government A
and also joined the Government as Ministers.
Subsequently, two sets of MLA-respondent Nos. 1 to 5
and 11 B.J.P. MLAs informed the Governor that due to
corruption and nepotism in the functioning of the
Government, they were withdrawing their support to the .. B
Government headed by Chief Minister-B.S.Neddiyurappa.
The Governor requested the Chief Minister to prove his
majority on the floor of the House. "The Chief Minister
sought disqualification of the five independent Members
as also eleven B.J.P. MLAs from the Assembly under C
paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
The Speaker of the Assembly disqualified the respondent
Nos.1 to 5 as also eleven B.J.P. MLAs from their
membership of the State Legislative Assembly. The
respondents filed writ petition challenging the order
                                                             0
disqualifying them and enable them to participate in the
proceedings of the House. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed
applications under Or. VI r. 17 CPC read with Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution in the writ petitions praying
for leave to amend a portion of paragraph 9 of their writ
petitions 'that petitioners have not left the Bhartiya Janta E
Party at all' and substitute the same with the following
sentence 'petitioners have not joined B.J.P. at all and the
evidence of the second respondent to the contrary are
perverse and are liable to be set aside.' It was submitted
that two set of writ petitions having been filed, the said F
sentence was inadvertently lifted from the set of writ
petition filed by eleven B.J.P. MLAs to the set of writ
petition filed by respondents Nos 1 to 5, in haste. The
High Court allc.1wed the application. Therefore, the
petitioners filed the instant Special Leave Petitions.       G

    Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court

   . HE:LD: 1.1 .The submission that the statements made
in'paras;iraph 9 of the writ petitions to the effect that the
                                                                H
    1274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A petitioners had not left the 8hartiya Janata Party at all,
  was not a mistake but was intentionally made, and that
  the High Court had erroneously held otherwise, is not
  borne out by the circumstances indicated in the writ
  petitions, if considered in their totality. There is no
8 doubting the fact that the writ petitioners had all
  throughout indicated that they had been elected as
  independent candidates and had neither contested the
  elections on the 8.J.P. symbol nor had they, at any point
  of time, joined the 8.J.P. On the other hand, even in their
c interim reply submitted to the Speaker in respect of the
  show-cause notices issued to them, respondent Nos.1 to
  5 have in no uncertain terms in paragraph 8 stated that
  they were Independents who had not joined any political
   party, least of all the 8.J.P. and had been supporting the
  Yeddiyurappa Government from outside. In fact, except
0
  for an inference being drawn from the statement that the
  writ petitioners had not left the 8.J.P., that they had earlier
  joined the party, there is no factual basis for the finding
   that the writ petitioners had joined the 8.J.P. Even in the
   letter addressed by them to the Governor, they had very
E clearly indicated that they were withdrawing support to
   the 8.J.P. Government led by Shri 8.S. Yeddiyurappa on
   account of the corruption, nepotism and favouritism,
   which was prevalent on a wide scale in the State. At no
   point of time any positive evidence was adduced by the
F Special Leave Petitioners to establish that the writ
   petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 5 had at all joined the
   8.J.P. [Para 21] [1285-8-H; 1286-A-8]

      1.2 In the circumstances indicated, the statements
G made in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions filed by
  respondent Nos.1 to 5 that they had not left the B.J.P.,
  was an inadvertent error. On the other hand, there is a
  good deal of substance in the stand taken by respondent
  Nos.1 to 5 that on account of the preparation of the two
H sets of writ petitions having similar facts but involving
D.N. JEEVARAJU "'
               & ANR. v. D. SUDHAKAR & ORS.1275
                   ETC.
two sets of M.L.As, some of the paragraphs which were          A
not intended to be included in the writ petitions filed by
respondent Nos.1 to 5 were inadvertently included,
resulting in the statement in paragraph 9 of the writ
petitions that respondent Nos.1 to 5 had not left the B.J.P.
It is obvious that such a statement was intended to be         B
made and was made in the writ petitions filed by the 11
B.J.P. M.L.As who had been disqualified on the ground
that they had left the B.J.P. and had joined another party
thereby attracting the consequences of paragraph 2(2) of
the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. [Para 22] [1286-       c
C-E]

     1.3 The High Court correctly held that the mistake
was unintentional and that nowhere, except in one stray
sentence in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions, had
respondent Nos.1 to 5 stated that they had left the B.J.P.     D
and that the said sentence could not be considered as a
categorical admission if looked at from the context of the
proceedings itself being under paragraph 2(2) to the
Tenth Schedule. The Tenth Schedule provides that an
elected member of a House who_ has been elected as             E
such, otherwise than as a candidate set up by any
political party, would be disqualified from being a Member
of the House, if he joined any political party after such
election. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of
the Special Leave Petitioners are not accepted. [Paras 23      F
and 24] [1288-F-H; 1289-A-B]

    Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram lchharam alias Brijram
and Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 242; Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetty
and Ors. 2008 (7) SCC 85 - referred to.
                                                               G
                    Case Law Reference:
    (1974) 1 sec 242           Referred to         Para 12
    2000 (7) sec 85            Referred to         Para 12
                                                               H
    1276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    33333-33335 of 2010.

       From the Judgment &Order dated 15.11.2010 of the High
  ·Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Misc. W. No. 9995 ot 2010
B in Writ Petition No. 32674-32678 of 2010 (GM-RES), Misc. W.
   No. 10529 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 32674-32678 of 2010
   (GM-RES), Misc. W. No. 10698 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.
   32674-32678 of 2010 (GM-RES).

        Soli J. Sirabji, Satya Pal Jain, Bhupender Yadav, Vikramjit
C   Banerjee, S.S. Shamshery, M.B. Nargund, Vikram Phadke,
    R.C. Kohli for the Petitioners.

        P.P. Rao, Prashant Kumar, Triveni Poteker, Mahalakshmi
    Pavani, Bimola Devi, Shashi Kiran Shetty, Purushottam S.T.
D   Utsav Sidhu, Filza Moonis, Apeksha Sharan, Amarjit Singh
    Bedi for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. These Special Leave Petition (C)
E   Nos.33333-33335 of 2010 arise out of a final judgment and
    order dated 15th November, 2010, passed by the Karnataka
    High Court at Bangalore in M.W.No.9995/10, M.W.No.10529/
    10, M.W.No.10698/10, W.P.No.32674/10, W.P.No.32675/10,
    W.P.No.32676/10, W.P.No.32677/10 and W.P.No.32678/10,
F   allowing the writ petitioners' application, being Misc.W.No.9995
    of 2010, praying for leave to amend a portion of paragraph 9
    of the Writ Petitions.

         2. The Writ Petitioners, D. Sudhakar, Venkataramanappa,
G   Gulihatti D. Shekar, Shivaraj S. Thangadgi and P.M. Narendra
    Swamy, were all elected as independent Members in the
    General Elections held to the 13th Karnataka Legislative
    Assembly. After being elected, they supported the exercise
    undertaken by the Bhartiya Janata Party (hereinafter referred

H
D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR. v. D. SUDHAKAR & ORS.1277
           ETC. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

to as "B.J.P.") led by Shri B.S. Yeddiyurappa, leader of the        A
B.J.P. Legislature Party, to form a Government in the State in
May, 2008. The writ petitioners, who have been made the
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in these Special Leave Petitions, apart
from extending support, also joined the Government as Ministers
and it appears that they also attended meetings of the B.J.P.       B
Legislature Party.

      3. On 6th October, 2010, each of the independent
Members informed the Governor that due to corruption and
nepotism in the functioning of the Government, they had
become disillusioned and were thus withdrawing their support C
to the Government headed by B.S. Yeddiyurappa. The very
next day, Shri D.N. Jeevaraju and Shri C.T. Ravi, who were the
Chief Whip and Member Secretary of the B.J.P. in Karnataka,
filed a petition before the Speaker for disqualificntion of the five
independent Members from the Assembly unde>r paragraph 2(2) D
of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. On 8th October, 2010,
a show-cause notice was also issued by the Secretary of the
Karnataka Legislative Assembly to the Respondent Nos.1 to
5 herein, requiring them to file objections in writing by 5.00 p.m.
on 10th October, 2010, as to why appropriate orders should . E
not be passed for their disqualification under paragraph 2(2)
of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. It was also mentioned
that if the said Respondents failed to be present or to file their
objections on or before the said date, the matter would be
decided in accordance with law.                                      F

     4. It is the case of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 that they had
not been individually served with copies of the said show-cause
notice and that on 9th October, 2010, they came to learn
through the media about the issuance of the show-cause notice       G
and sought copies· of the same along with all annexures. It is
the further case of the said Respondents that on 10th October,
2010, at 11.00 a.m. they were provided with the copies of the
show-cause notice and ~opies of the complaints and
documents filed by the ~espondents. According to the said           H
    1278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   Respondents, they filed interim replies dated 9th October,
    2010, to the show-cause notice and sought for time to file
    complete objections thereto. The matter was taken up for
    hearing at 3.30 p.m. on 10th October, 2010, and despite the
    prayer for time filed by the Respondents, the Speaker of the
B   Assembly passed orders on the same day disqualifying the
    Respondent Nos.1 to 5 under paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth
    Schedule to the Constitution with immediate effect. The very next
    day, the vote of confidence sought by the 8th Respondent in
    the Writ Petition, the Chief Minister of the State, before the
c   Karnataka Legislative Assembly, was to take place. The
    Respondents, therefore, hurriedly filed Writ Petition Nos.32764-
    78 of 2010 challenging the order dated 10th October, 2010, in
    Disqualification Application No.2/10 filed by D.N. Jeevaraju and
    C.T. Ravi, in order to obtain stay of the order of the High Court
    and enable them to participate in the proceedings of the House.
0
          5. In view of the urgency of the matter, a request was made
    to the Chief Justice of Karnataka to convene a Bench and
    sitting of the Court while the writ petitions were filed in the
    Registry. Acceding to the request made, a Division Bench was
E   convened with the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Judge. In such
    circumstances, certain unintended errors appear to have been
    incorporated in the writ petitions filed by the Respondents
    containing certain statements which were, in fact, part of another
    set of writ petitions, which had been filed on behalf of eleven
F   B.J.P. M.L.As., who had also withdrawn their support to the
    Yedddiyurappa Government and had, therefore, faced
    disqualification proceedings as well.

       6. It is the further case of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 that
G in view of the hurry in which the two sets of writ petitions were
  made ready, some of the facts which were common to both the
  sets of writ petitions were lifted from one set of writ petitions
  to the other and in the process certain unintended statements
  were included in the writ petitions filed by the Respondent Nos.1
  to 5 herein which were, in fact, identical to the paragraphs
H included in the earlier set of writ petitions filed by the other set
 D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR. v. D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. 1279
            ETC. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

 of M.L.As. belonging to the B.J.P. who had also been                 A
 disqualified. In the process, in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions
 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, certain unintended
 statements had been included which in the context of the entire
.writ petition was obviously a mistake. For the sake of reference,
 paragraph 9 of Writ Petition (C) Nos.32674 to 32678 of 2010,         B
 is extracted hereinbelow :

     "9. That the alleged petition made by the Respondent No.1
     & 3 herein, is clearly mala fide and has been made with
     an oblique motive knowingly in violation of Rule 6(4) of
     Disqualification Rules, 1986, which required him to satisfy      C
     himself that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
     a question has arisen as to whether such member has
     become subject to disqualification under the Tenth
     Schedule. No reasonable person would in the facts of this
     case could come to the conclusion that the Petitioners had       D
     incurred any disqualification on the ground of defection.
     Even prima facie defection means leaving the party and
     joining another. Petitioner has not left the Bharathiya
     Janatha Party at all."
                                                                      Etl
      7. The entire case of the Petitioners in these Special
Leave Petitions is centered around the said statements, which
the High Court held, had been incorporated by mistake on
account of the circumstances in which the two sets of writ
petitions had been filed.                                             F

     8. In view of the said error in the writ petitions filed by
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, an Interlocutory Application,
being l.A.No.9995 of 2010, was filed by the writ petitioners
under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read
with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for           G
amendment of paragraph 9 thereof. In the light of the categorical
statements made by the writ petitioners that they had not used
the symbol of B.J.P. for contesting the Assembly Elections nor
had they joined the B.J.P., but had only supported the formation
                                                                      H
    1280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   of government as independent M.L.As., a prayer was made for
    leave to delete the last sentence of paragraph 9, which reads
    as, "petitioner has not left the Bhartiya Janata Party at all" and
    to substitute the same with the following sentence, namely,
    "petitioners have not joined B.J.P. at all and the evidence of
B   the second Respondent to the contrary are perverse and are
    liable to be set aside."

         9. As indicated hereinbefore, the High Court by its
    impugned judgment and order dated 15th November, 2010,
C   after considering the case of the writ petitioners as a whole,
    allowed the amendment upon holding that if such amendment
    was permitted, neither the nature of the dispute, cause of action,
    nor the nature of relief sought for in the writ petitions would
    change and that no prejudice or injustice would be caused to
    the Respondents.
D
        10. The said judgment and order of the High Court is the
    subject matter of challenge in these Special Leave Petitions.

         11. Initially, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Advocate,
E   appeared for the Petitioners herein, and submitted that the
    statements made in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions, which
    were allowed to be amended by the High Court, were not on
    account of a mere mist ,e but had intentionally been made
    and, in any event, admission being the best proof of a fact, the
    said statements would have to be taken as an admission, the
F   benefit whereof could not be denied to the Petitioners in the
    Special Leave Petitions.

          12. Mr. Soli J. Sorabji, learned Senior Advocate, who,
   thereafter, appeared for the Petitioners herein, continued in the
G same vein. In support of such contention, Mr. Sorabji firstly relied
   on the decision of this Court in Nagindas Ramdas Vs.
   Dalpatram /chharam alias Brijram & Ors. [(1974) 1 SCC 242],
   where the provisions of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872,
 · fell for consideration and after considering the earlier decisions
H of this Court on the subject, it was held that the principle that
  D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR. v. D. SUDHAKAR & ORS.1281
             ETC. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

·emerges from an analysis of earlier cases is that if at the time A
 of passing of the decree there was some material before the
 Court, on the basis of which, the Court could be prima facie
 satisfied about the existence of a statutory ground of eviction,
 a presumption would have to be drawn that the Court was so
 satisfied and the decree for eviction, even if passed on the basis B
 of a compromise, would be valid. Such material could take the
 shape either of evidence recorded or produced in the case or
 it may partly or wholly be in fhe shape of an express or implied
 admission made in the compromise agreement itself. This
 Court went on to observe that the admissions, if true and clear, c
-are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. In other words,
 admissions and pleadings or judicial adrnissions, admissible
 under Sec;tion 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or
 their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a
 higher footing than evidentiary admissions. Same is the view DI
 expressed by this Court in Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetty &
 Ors. [(2008 (7) sec 85], in which in similar circumstances,          I
 while considering an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the ·
  Code of Civil Procedure, this Court observed that an admission
 made in a pleading is not to be treated in the same manner
 as an admission in a document. An admission made by a party E
 to the /is is admissible against him proprio vigore. Various
  other decisions on the same point were cited by Mr. Sorabji in
 support of his submissions.

         13. Mr. Sorabji urged that it is hardly believable that such p
   vital statements went unnoticed by the lawyers appearing for
   the writ petitioners, particularly in the circumstances which
   indicate that having by their acts and conducts, joined the B.J.P .
. for all practical purposes, it was only natural that a statement
   was made in the writ petitions that they had not left the B.J.P. G
   Mr. Sorabji submitted that far from being a mistake, the
   statement had been deliberately made on account of their
 . conduct after the allegations were made that the writ petitioners
   had not only supported the B.J.P.-led Government, but had also
                                                                     H
    1282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   participated therein by taking oath as Ministers in the
    Government led by Shri B.S. Yeddiyurappa as the leader of the
    B.J.P. Legislature Party. Mr. Sorabji laid special stress on the
    wording of paragraph 9 of the reply filed by the writ petitioners
    in which it was categorically stated that since Shri B.S.
B   Yeddiyurappa had forfeited the confidence of the Speaker to
    continue as the Chief Minister, in the interest of the State, the
    people of Karnataka and the B.J. P., the concerned writ
    petitione•11 had withdrawn" their support from the Government
    headeG oy Shri B.S. Yeddiyurappa as the Chief Minister.
c      14. Mr. Sorabji also emphasized the fact that in the
  application filed by the writ petitioners under Order VI Rule 17
  C.P.C., the writ petitioners had not indicated in paragraph 4
  thereof as to who had given the instructions to the lawyers
  concerned to draft the writ petitions, nor had the names of the
D lawyers been disclosed and in the absence of such relevant
  information, it could not be presumed that the statements made
  in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions were unintentional or had
  been made through oversight.

E        15. Mr. Sorabji ended on the note that the observation of
    the High Court that if the amendment was allowed, no one,
    including the Petitioners herein, would be prejudiced in any way,
    was also entirely erroneous, inasmuch as, if the prayer for
    amendment had been disallowed, the Petitioners herein would
F   have been entitled to the benefit of the admission made by the
    writ petitioners, which would have, in fact, cut away the very
    foundation of the writ petitioners' case.

        16. Replying to the case made out on behalf of the writ
  petitioners herein, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Advocate,
G contended that admittedly there were two sets of cases relating
  to the disqualification of 11 B.J.P. M.L.As. and the
  disqualification of 5 independent M.L.As., where thP. facts are
  similar, although, the grounds ot disqualification in the two cases
  are entirely different. In the first case, the ground of attack was
H
D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR. v. D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. 1283
           ETC. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

that the said 11 M.L.As. had "voluntarily given up their A
membership of B.J.P .", and had thereby incurred the
disqualification under paragraph 2(1 )(a) of the Tenth Schedule
to the Constitution. In the second case, the ground is that the
independent M.L.As. having joined the B.J.P. by extending
support to the B.J.P. Government soon after their election, had B
incurred disqualification under paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth
Schedule. The two sets of M.L.As. had addressed similar
lette·rs to the Governor on 6th October, 201 o; intimating their
intention to withdraw the support to the Government led by Chief
Minister, Shri B.S. Yeddiyurappa, whose corruption, nepotism      c
and favoritism had become unbearable. On the said basis, on ·
the very same day the Governor re4uested the Chief Minister
to prove his majority on the Floor of the House on or before
12th October, 201 o.- Mr. Rao submitted that apprehending that
on account of the withdrawal of the support of 16 M.L.As., -he
                                                                    0
would not be able to win the trust vote, the Chief Minister, with
the help of the Speaker, chose to manipulate the trust vote by
getting all the 16 M.L.As., who had withdrawn their support to
 him, disqualified before the Assembly met on 11th October,
2010, at 10.00 a.m. for the trust vote.
                                                                    E
       17. In pursuance of the said design, the Chief Minister
 himself filed a petition before the Speaker on 6th October,
 2010, seeking disqualification of the 11 B.J.P. M.L.As. on the
ground that they had written to the Governor withdrawing
 support to the Government, without the decision of the party and F
 such action attracted disqualification under the Tenth Schedule
to the Constitution. A similar application was filed on 6th
 October, 2010, in which the petitioners herein Shri D.N.
 Jeevaraju, who was the Chief Whip of the B.J.P. and C.T. Ravi,
 M.L.A. and Joint Secretary of the B.J.P. State unit, filed a G
 separate petition, being Disqualification Petition No.2 of 2010,
 for disqualification of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, alleging
 that by declaring their support to the Government soon after the
 elections, they had become Members of the B.J.P. and should,
 therefore, be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule to the H
                                                                  ._   I   \


    1284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL:)'S'.C.R.

A Constitution.

          18. On 7th October, 2010, the Speaker issued show-cause
    notices to the B.J.P. M.L.As. on the basis of the petition
    submitted by the Chief Minister. Thereafter, on 8th October,
    2010, the Speaker issued show-cause notices to the five
8
    M.L.As. being Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein, on the basis of
    the petition submitted by Shri D.N. Jeevaraju and Shri C.T.
    Ravi. Time to file objections to the petitions ·filed was given till
    5.00 p.m. o 1 or Jefore 10th October, 2010. It is the case of the ·
    Respondent 1-.Jos.1 to 5 that they had not been personally
C   served with copies of the notices which were pasted on the
    doors of their M.L.A. quarters when all of them were out of
    station, as the Assembly was not in Session, but on their
    coming to know from the media about the notice, they
    approached the Speaker through their counsel and obtained
D   copies of the notice and hurriedly prepared interim replies which
    were submitted on 10th October, 2010, seeking time to file
    detailed replies. Thereafter, on the same day, the formality of
    going through a hearing was performed by the Speaker and in
    the night of 10th October, 2010, itself, the Speaker passed
E   separate orders disqualifying the 11 B.J.P. M.L.As. and the 5
    independent candidates from their membership of the
    Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

        19. Mr. Rao submitted that it is in such circumstances that
F writ petitions were hurriedly prepared with the object of moving
  the High Ccurt to obtain orders of stay before 10.00 a.m. on
  11th October, 2010, before the trust vote could be taken in the
  Assembly. It is in such circumstances that certain paragraphs
  were lifted from the writ petitions filed on behalf of the 11 B.J.P.
G M.L.As., which resulted in the unintentional mistakes occurring
  in paragraph 9 of the writ petition.

         20. Mr. -Rao submitted that there could be little doubt that
    the statements made in paragraph 9 were entirely unintended,
    since it struck at the very root of the case of the writ petitioners
H
 D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR. v. D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. 1285
            ETC. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

and an attempt to submit otherwise was entirely absurd. Mr.            A
Rao submitted that the order of the High Court having been
passed in the totality of the incidents which occurred between
6th October and 10th October, 2010, no interference was called
for with the same.
                                                                       8
       21. From the submissions made on behalf of the
 respective parties, it is obvious that in these Special Leave
 Petitions we are only·required to consider the correctness of
 the common judgment and order dated 15th November, 2010,
 passed by the High Court in the Writ Petitions referred to in
 paragraph 1 of this judgment, allowing the applications filed by      C
 the writ petitioners/ Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein for leave to
 amend paragraph 9 thereof. Although, it has been strenuously
.urged on behalf of Special Leave Petitioners that the statements
 made in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions to the effect that the
 petitioners had not left the Bhartiya Janata Party at all, was not    D
 a mistake but was intentionally made, and that the High Court
 had erroneously held otherwise, is not borne out by the
 circumstances indicated in the writ petitions, if considered in
 their totality. There is no doubting the fact that the writ
 petitioners had all throughout indicated that they had been           E
 elected as independent candidates and had neither contested
 the elections on the B.J.P. symbol nor had they, at any point of
 time, joined the B.J.P. On the other hand, even in their interim
 reply dated 9th October, 2010, submitted to the Speaker in
 respect of the s.how-cause notices issued to them, the                F
  Respondent Nos.1 fo 5 have in no uncertain terms in paragraph
 8 stated that they were Independents who had not joined any
 political party, least of all the B.J.P. and had been supporting
 the Yeddiyurappa Government from outside till 6.10.2010. In
 fact, except for an inference being drawn from the statement          G
 that the writ petitioners had not left the B.J.P., that they had
 earlier joined the party, there is no factual basis for the finding
 that the writ petitioners had joined the B.J.P. Even in the letter
 addressed by them to the Governor, they had very clearly
  indicated that they were withdrawing support to the B.J.P.           H
    1286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   Government let: by Shri B.S. Yeddiyurappa on account of the
    corruption, nepotism and favouritism, which was prevalent on
    a wide scale in the State. At no point of time has any positive
    evidence been adduced by the Special Leave Petitioners to
    establish that the Writ Petitioners/Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein
B   had at all joined the B.J.P.

        22. In the circumstances indicated hereinabove, the
   statements made in paragraph 9 of the Writ Petitions filed by
   the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein that they had not left the
 C B.J.P., was an inadvertent error. On the other hand, there is a
   good deal of substance in the stand taken by the Respondent
   Nos.1 to 5 that on account of the preparation of the two sets of
   Writ Petitions having similar facts but involving two sets of
   M.L.As, some of the paragraphs which were not intendEld to
   be included in the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondent Nos.1
 D to 5 herein were inadvertently included, resulting in the
   statement in paragraph 9 of the Writ Petitions that the
   Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein had not left the B.J.P. It is
   obvious that such a statement was intended to be made and
   was made in the Writ Petitions filed by the 11 B.J.P. M.L.As
!E who had been disqualified on the ground that they had left the
   B.J.P. and had joined another party thereby attracting the
   co.nsequences of paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule to the
   Constitution.

F       23. In our view, the.High Court has correctly held that the
  mistake was unintentional and that nowhere, except in one stray
  sentence in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions, ·had the
  Respondent Nos.1 to 5 stated that they had left the B.J.P. and
  that the said sentence could not be considered as a categorical
G admission if looked at from the context of the proceedings itself
  being under paragraph 2(2) to the Tenth Schedule. The Tenth
  Schedule provides that an elected member of a House who has
  been elected as such, otherwise than as a candidate set up
  by any political party, would be disqualified from being a
H Member of the House, if he joined any political party after such
D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR. v. D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. 1287
           ETC. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

election.                                                         A
     24. We are not, therefore, inclined to accept the
submissions made on behalf of the Special Leave Petitioners
and all the Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed
without any order as to costs.
                                                                  B
D.G.                                         SLPs dismissed.