D. Sudhakar & Ors. v. D.N. Jeevaraju & Ors.

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4510-4514 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 14.2.2011 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalorein Writ Petition No. 32674- 32678 of 2010 (GM-RES). WITH C.A. No. 4517-4521 of2011. P.P. Rao, K.K. Venugopal, Satpal Jain, P.S. Narsimha, Dinesh Dwivedi, Jaideep Gupta, Soli J. Sorabji, Prashant Kumar Mahalakshmi Pavani, Bimola Devi, Triveni Potekar, Ustav Sidhu, Apeksha Sharan, Filza Moonis, Amarjit Singh, Bedi, Prashant Kumar, Pooja Dhar, Gopal, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Bhupender Yadav, Ruchi Kohli, Saurabh Shamsherty, Anish Kumar Gupta, M.B. Nargan, Deep Shikha Bharati, P.V. Yogeshwaran, Vikramjeet Banerjee, M.B. Nargund, Prasanna Deshmukh, Rajeev Kr. Singh, Vikramjeet, Pritish Kapoor, Jyotika Kalra for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1Leave granted.

2We are unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondents that by extending support to Shri Yeddyurappa in the formation of the Bharatiya Janata Party led Government the appellants had sacrificed their independent · identity. The fact that the said appellants also joined the Council of Ministers does not also point to such an eventuality. It is no D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. v. D.N. JEEVARAJU & ORS. 329 [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] doubt true that an independent legislator does not always have A to express his intention to join a party in writing, but the mere extension of support to Shri Yeddyurappa and the decision to join his Cabinet, in our view, was not sufficient to indicate that the appellants had decided to join and/or had actually joined the Bharatiya Janata Party, particularly on account of the subsequent conduct in which they were treated differently from the Members of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

3We are, therefore, unable to sustain the decision of the Speaker as affirmed by the High Court. and we, accordingly, C allow the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the Speaker on 11.10.2010 and by the Full Bench of the High Court on 14.2.2011.

4There will, however, be no order as to costs.

5Detailed judgment will follow. N.J. Appeals allowed.