Musharraf Vs. State of U.P. and Others

.....in the disqualification application filed by shri yeddyurappa. mr. nariman submitted that the speaker had applied two different yardsticks as far as the appellants and shri m.p. renukacharya and shri narasimha nayak are concerned, despite the fact that they too had written identical letters to the governor withdrawing support to the government led by shri yeddyurappa. mr. nariman submitted that once shri m.p. renukacharya and shri narasimha nayak had written to the governor expressing their decision to withdraw support to the government headed by shri yeddyurappa, the provisions of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the tenth schedule came into operation immediately and the speaker was no longer competent to reverse the same. mr. nariman submitted that at every stage the speaker had favoured shri yeddyurappa and even though rule 7(2) of the 1986 rules provided for the dismissal of the petition which did not comply with the requirements of rule 6, as in the present case, the speaker did not do so. reiterating mr. nariman's submissions, mr. rao submitted that withdrawal of support by the appellants to the government led by shri yeddyurappa did not amount to voluntarily relinquishing the membership of the bjp since the government led by a particular leader and the political party are not synonymous. mr. rao submitted that in blatant disregard of the above-mentioned rules, the speaker had entertained the defective petition filed by shri yeddyurappa in complete disregard of rules 6 and 7 of the 1986 rules. mr. rao pointed out that paragraph 100 of the decision in kihoto hollohan's case (supra) declares the speaker or the chairman acting under paragraph 6 of the tenth schedule to be a tribunal. mr. sorabjee submitted that after detailed replies had been filed by the appellants, a full- fledged hearing had been given to them and hence the appellants did not suffer any prejudice on account of the procedure adopted by the speaker in disposing of shri yeddyurappa's..........that the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and(c) of sub-section (1) of section 3 exist that the district magistrate can issue any direction regarding externment or impose any restriction with regard to the movement of the petitioner as provided under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the act. 6. what we find in the present case is that on the basis of evidence adduced by the petitioner, a clear finding has been recorded in the impugned order itself that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner is 'goonda' and thus the notice issued has been being withdrawn as no case has been made out against him. once such a finding has been recorded, meaning thereby that there is no satisfaction of the district magistrate that any of the conditions specified in subsection (1) of section 3 exist, we are of the clear view that the district magistrate could not have thereafter issued any direction imposing restriction on the movement of the petitioner. in having done so and issuing the aforesaid direction to the petitioner to report every 15 days at the police station for the next six months, the district magistrate has overstepped his jurisdiction. as such, the said direction deserves to be quashed. 7. accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent that the direction given in the order dated 26.2.2011 passed by the additional district magistrate, budaun requiring the petitioner to report at the police station every 15 days for the next six months is quashed. 8. there shall be no order as to costs.