F233 So eer 3 considered and decided. Accordingly, restraining the Speaker from taking any decision under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule is, in our view, beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court, since the Constitution itself has vested the Speaker with the power to take a decision under paragraph 6 and care has also been taken to indicate that such decision of the Speaker would be final. It is only thereafter that the ‘High Court assumes jurisdiction to examine the Speaker's order. PRESENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS DIFFERENT FROM PENDING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON AND CIVIL APPEAL: 5 In the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10060 of 2019 pending before this Hon’ble Court and relied upon by the petitioner, by the impugned order the Hon'ble Speaker accepted the merger under paragraph 4 of the 10” Schedule of the Constitution. But no such order accepting merger has been passed by the Hon'ble Speaker in this case. (11) 6 The present case is different from the facts of the case is in the Civil Appeal No. 5871/2016. The said case there was a Petition filed before the Speaker seeking disqualification of members long with a claim of merger in defence and the order of the Speaker was made under Para 6 of the 10” Schedule. Whereby, the claim of merger was rejected and the MLAs were disqualified. | 7 Moreover, the said SLP has become infructuous, as the matter therein related to the erstwhile 12 Nagaland Legislative Assembly which has already been dissolved. To the Contrary in the present case the Speaker has passed an order so as to enable his office to carry out necessary changes pertaining to the party affiliation of the Members under the 2019 Rules. 8. Even the Rules under which the Speaker considered the disqualification Petitions were different. In the pending Civil Appeal No.5871/2016 the proceedings were conducted under (disqualification on grounds of defection) Rules, 2003, whereas in the present case (disqualification on grounds of defection) Rules, 2019 are applicable. Since, the (disqualification on grounds Of defection) Rules, 2003 has been repealed, ISLATIVE PARTY” IS TO BE iS questions of law raised by the Not sustainable. The Petitioner has Na “political party” and a “legislativeRule 5(1) [page 98 of the SLP paper-book] |! 1 , on the “The Secretary shall maintain, 2s in Form a ret = wee infomation furished under rues 32nd #10 TRL” mem SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTENABLE: 3 Further, under Article 136 of the Constitution, se only against a judicial order or @ ‘quasi-judicial order. order of the Speaker being a procedural order ds capacity under the 2019Rules for correction of records . see onder Article 136. The Speaker does not act 25 2 quasi bake passing any order under rule 4 (3) of the Rules, this has been care seal upheld by this Hon’ble Court in Speaker, Haryana Vidhan = 5 Bishmoi and Ors. [(2015) 12 SCC 381 at paragraph 41, 42, 438 44] SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS PRE-MATURE: 4. Teis further submitted that the Petitioner has no Cause of action to file the resent Petition. The impugned order only deals with the status of the one MLAs regarding their party affiliation in the Assembly. There is no disqualification Petition fled against this MLA under Paragraph 6 of the 10" Seregule, The Speaker has not passed any order under any disqualification application. The Petitioner is not prejudiced in any manner by the mere jubication of information regarding party afflation. I is thus submitted that the Petitioners cannot directly approach this Hon'ble Court without first approaching the Speaker under Paragraph 6 of the Schedule X. Only a decision under Paragraph 6 of Schedule X is amenable to judicial review. This vane spore a the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Speaker faryana Vidhan Sabha vs. Kuldeep Bishnoi, ‘ScC-381 paragraph 44}: Pp reported in [(2015) 12 In that regard, we are of the view that since the decision of the Speaker on a petition under paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule ae a question of merger on which the Speaker is not ye ee the High Court could not have assumed isdction under its powers of review before a decision was taken by Tenth Schedule to the ] under paragraph 6 that the | quasi-judicial order which is High Court. It is in such to the disqualification is to bea , SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO.38834 OF 2019 Janta Dal (U) Vs. The Speaker, 13° Nagaland Legislative Assembly &Ors. FACTS: 1 The instant Special Leave Petition is fled against the order dated 24.06.2019 of the Hon’ble Speaker in Charge of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly, under the (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 2019. By the said order the Speaker has published revised summary of information as per Rule 4(3) and accordingly corrected the party affiliation of Respondent no.2 i. G. Kaito aye. ORDER OF THE SPEAKER IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL ORDER AND NOT AN ADJUDICATION OF MERGER: 2 It is contended by the Petitioner that the Speaker had no jurisdiction to pass the said order and to decide the issue of merger of the parties. However, itis relevant to point out that the aforesaid order of the Speaker challenged in the instant Special Leave Petition is merely a procedural order passed on the Information furnished by the members underthe 2019 Rules. The impugned order in substance is not an order under Schedule X of the Constitution as no petitioner for disqualification has been preferred against the MLA till date. The impugned order is merely a procedural order regarding publication of General Information regarding members in the Bulletin. This becomes evident from perusal of Page 2 of the Special Leave Petition wherein the Information regarding party affiliation of members is published. The said order is therefore in substance an order under 2019 Rules. The said Rule 3(4), 4(3) and 5(1) provides as under: Rule 3(4) [page 96 of the SLP paper-book] 104 "Whenever any change takes place in the information furnished by the leader of a legislature party under sub-rule (1) or by @ member under sub-rule (2), the member concerned, within thirty days thereafter, or, within such further period as the Speaker may for sufficient cause allow, furnish in writing information to the Speaker with respect to such change.” Rule 4(3) [page 98 of the SLP paper-book] |! "A summary of the information fumished by the members under this rule shall be published in the bulletin and if any discrepancy therein is pointed out to the satisfaction of the speaker, necessary corrigendum ‘shall be published in the bulletin”4 pay as defined in Para 1(b) ofthe 10" Schedule. The term “Legislative Party”, in relation to a member of a House belonging to any political party means the group consisting of all the members of that House for the time being belonging to that political party. The merger as contemplated in Paragraph 4(2) takes place only when two-thirds of the members of the legislative party concerned have agreed to such merger. Sub-para (2) of paragraph 4 creates a deeming fiction which is limited for the purpose of sub- para (1) of paragraph 4 and cannot extend beyond the said provision. Therefore the merger will be of the legislative party of the members who have joined the other party. This view is supported by the decision of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Baljit ‘Singh Bhullar ‘and Anr. vs. Hon. Speaker, Punjab Vidhan Sabha, reported in MANU/PH/0388/1997, wherein based on the decision of this Hon'ble Court in KihotoHollohon (Supra) it was held that, "The deeming provision as discussed above and contained in sub paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 clearly Is indicative of the fact that the merger contemplated in paragraph 4 is a merger of the political party consisting of the members of the Legislature with Another political party. If by majority of two-third members of that Legislative members ‘belonging to that particular poltical party agree, then it shall be taken that political party has merged with another political party.”