JUDGMENT - D.R. Dhanuka, J. :—-The petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa duly elected from Mapusa Constituency. The respondent Nos. 2 and 5 are also Members of the said Legislative Assembly. On 16th January, 1995, the respondent No. 5 was declared elected as the Honourable Speaker of the said Assembly. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No. 5 as Speaker of respondent No. 1 Assembly on various grounds set out in the petition and has sought various reliefs as set out in prayer clauses of the petition. The learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 has contended at the outset that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition in view of the constitutional bar contained in Articles 212(1) and 212(2) of the Constitution of India. 2. We shall consider the various submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side in due course. 3. The Governor of Goa had appointed respondent No. 2, a Member of respondent No. 1 Assembly, as a 'Pro-tem Speaker' as permissible under Article 180(1) of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 2 has declared on the floor of the House after ascertaining the wishes of the majority of Members by voice vote that the respondent No. 5 was duly elected as a Speaker of the House. The respondent No. 5 is functioning as Speaker of the House. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Goa Legislature, respectively. 4. This petition involves, inter alia, consideration of the following questions by this Court:- 1(a). Whether the respondent No. 2, having been appointed by the Governor of the State to perform the duties of Speaker under Article 180(1) of the Constitution (popularly known as 'Pro-tem Speaker'), is entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of India and the Rules of Business framed under Article 208 of the Constitution on par with that of an elected Speaker as an officer of the State Legislature while conducting the business of the House? 1(b)(i) Whether the proceedings of the Legislature concerning election of the Speaker by the Legislature under the Chairmanship of Pro-tem Speaker amount to proceedings relating to conduct of business of the Legislature and are protected under Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India? 1(b)(ii) Whether Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India bars enquiry by the courts into the validity of proceedings in the Legislature of the State on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure only when the proceedings are conducted after the Speaker is elected by the House under Article 178 of the Constitution of India and not at an anterior stage when the election of the Speaker is conducted under the Chairmanship of Pro-tem Speaker? 2. Whether the petition is barred under Articles 212(1) and 212(2) of the Constitution of India and/or on any view of the matter ought not to be entertained or admitted having regard to the wishes of the majority as expressed on the floor of the House by their voice vote as recorded in the proceedings of the Legislature dated 16th January, 1995? 3. Whether the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are entitled to constitutional immunity from being sued under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of India? 4(a) Whether the provision contained in Rule 288 of the Rules of Procedure for taking decision in the House by voice vote, unless the division is asked for by a Member of the House, is applicable also to proceedings concerning the election of Speaker? 4(b) Whether the said provision if held applicable to the election of a Speaker would be violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India? 5(a) Whether there is any merit in the plea of mala fide or bias imputed to respondent No. 2? 5(b) Whether the plea of alleged mala fide and bias is prima facie substantiated? 5. For the reasons set out in the latter part of this judgment, we have reached the following conclusions on the questions formulated above. 5(a) Whether there is any merit in the plea of mala fide or bias imputed to respondent No. 2? 5(b) Whether the plea of alleged mala fide and bias is prima facie substantiated? 5. For the reasons set out in the latter part of this judgment, we have reached the following conclusions on the questions formulated above. We shall summarise our conclusions also in the later part of this judgment as well as the concluding paragraphs of this judgment :—- 1(a) The respondent No. 2 is entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of Speaker under the Constitution of India, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business framed under Article 208 of the Constitution of India or otherwise on par with that of elected Speaker. The respondent No. 2 was an officer of the State Legislature while conducting proceedings up to the stage of declaring result of election of the Speaker. 1(b)(i) Affirmative. 1(b)(ii) Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India bars enquiry by the courts into the validity of proceedings in the Legislature of a State conducted from the date the Legislature is constituted on issue of Notification under section 73 of the Representation of the People Act on the ground of alleged irregularity of procedure and does not protect merely the proceedings conducted by the elected Speaker. 2. Affirmative, as more particularly set out in the latter part of the judgment. 3. The respondent No. 2 is entitled to complete constitutional immunity under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of India. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to the petition. It is therefore not necessary to decide as to whether respondents Nos. 3 and 4 enjoy similar immunity. 4(a) Affirmative. 4(b) Negative. 5(a) Negative. 5(b) Negative. 6(a). On 13th day of December, 1994, the Election Commission of India issued a notification notifying the names of the Members duly elected to the new Legislative Assembly in the State of Goa. The respondent No. 1 was thus constituted as the new House of Legislature with effect from 13th December, 1994 on issue of the said Notification in terms of section 73 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The respondent No. 1 was thus constituted as the new House of Legislature with effect from 13th December, 1994 on issue of the said Notification in terms of section 73 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In view of the Constitution of the new Legislative Assembly as aforesaid, the earlier Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa was dissolved with immediate effect on issue of Order No. 10-3-1984/L.A. dated 15th December, 1994 by the Governor of Goa. By Notification No. LA/A/58/1995, the Governor of Goa summoned the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa to meet at the Assembly Hall, Panaji at 2.30 p.m. on Friday the 13th January, 1995. The office of the Speaker of Goa Legislative Assembly was to become vacant before the commencement of the first meeting of Goa Legislative Assembly on 13th January, 1995. The office of the Deputy Speaker was also vacant at the material time. On 11th January, 1995, the Governor of Goa issued Notification No. LA/A/80/1995 appointing one Shri Deu Mandrekar, a Member of the Goa Legislative Assembly to perform the duties of the office of the Speaker (i.e. to act "as Pro-tem Speaker", the use of the said expression having received Parliamentary imprimatur for several decades) with effect from 13th January, 1995, until the Speaker shall have been chosen by the said Assembly by holding of elections as provided in the relevant rules. The Governor of Goa issued the said Notification in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Article 180(1) of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Goa Legislative Assembly. The Governor of Goa also appointed the said Shri Deu Mandrekar as the person before whom Members of the Goa Legislative Assembly shall make and subscribe the oath or affirmation before taking their seats, until the Speaker was chosen by the Goa Legislative Assembly etc. as more particularly set out in the Notification No. LA/A/81/1995. On 11th January, 1995, the Governor of Goa issued further Notification No. LA/A/82/1995 fixing Monday the 16th January, 1995, to be the date for holding of election of the Speaker. The Government of Goa issued the said Notification as contemplated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Goa Legislative Assembly. On 11th January, 1995, the Governor of Goa issued further Notification No. LA/A/82/1995 fixing Monday the 16th January, 1995, to be the date for holding of election of the Speaker. The Government of Goa issued the said Notification as contemplated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Goa Legislative Assembly. On 12th January, 1995, the Governor of Goa issued Notification No. LA/A/99/1995 superseding the earlier Order/Notification No. LA/A/80/1995 and appointed the respondent No. 2 a Member of the Goa Legislative Assembly, to perform the duties of the office of the Speaker with effect form 13th January, 1995 until the Speaker shall have been chosen by the same Assembly. Thus the Governor of Goa appointed respondent No. 2 as Pro-tem Speaker of the Assembly till the Speaker was elected as contemplated under the constitution of India and the relevant rules. The Governor of Goa issued the said Notification in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Article 180(1) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Goa Legislative Assembly. On the same date the Governor of Goa issued another Notification bearing No. LA/A/100/1995 in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Article 188 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of his earlier order directing that the Members of the Goa Legislative Assembly shall make and subscribe the oath or affirmation before taking their seats before the respondent No. 2 as more particularly set out thereunder. By the said Notification, the earlier Order No. LA/A/81/1995 dated 11th January, 1995 was superseded. 6(b). On 16th January, 1995, the impugned election of the Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly was held. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 were the only two contestants for the office of the Speaker. In the first instance the respondent No. 2 directed that the Speaker shall be elected by ballot as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure. Election by ballot is not the only permissible mode of conducting election of Speaker. In view of certain events which had taken place as reflected in the proceedings of the Assembly dated 16th January, 1995, no result was declared by the Speaker Pro-tem in respect of the election proceedings commenced by ballot. Election by ballot is not the only permissible mode of conducting election of Speaker. In view of certain events which had taken place as reflected in the proceedings of the Assembly dated 16th January, 1995, no result was declared by the Speaker Pro-tem in respect of the election proceedings commenced by ballot. Rule 8(5) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Goa Legislative Assembly was suspended by the House with the approval of majority of Members of the House as more particularly set out in the later part of this judgment. Ultimately, it was decided by respondent No. 2 that Rule 8(5) of the said Rules be suspended in its application and the election of the Speaker be held by voice vote. The majority of the Members of the House carried this motion to the above effect. As a result of the voice vote taken in the House, the respondent No. 5 was declared elected to the office of the Speaker of the House. Since then the respondent No. 5 is functioning as a Speaker of the House in conformity with the wishes of the majority. 6(c). Being aggrieved by the declaration made by respondent No. 2 as Pro-tem Speaker to the effect that the respondent No. 5 was duly elected to the office of the Speaker of the House, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the election of respondent No. 5 as a Speaker of respondent No. 1. 6(c). Being aggrieved by the declaration made by respondent No. 2 as Pro-tem Speaker to the effect that the respondent No. 5 was duly elected to the office of the Speaker of the House, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the election of respondent No. 5 as a Speaker of respondent No. 1. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in the petition:- "(a) for a declaration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that the petitioner was duly chosen by election by the 2nd Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa on 16th January, 1995 at 1.29 p.m. as its Speaker; (b) for a declaration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that the purported choice of respondent No. 5 as its Speaker made by the 2nd Legislative Assembly of Goa on 16th January, 1995 at 1.40 p.m. is illegal, null and void; (c) for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents calling for the record of the case and upon considering the same quashing the purported choice made by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa respondent No. 5 as its speaker on 16th January, 1995 at 1.40 p.m.; (d) for a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling upon respondent No. 5 to show cause by what authority he is occupying the office of the Speaker of the 2nd Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa and upon perusing the return ousting him from the said office; (e) for an order and injunction restraining respondent No. 5 from performing the functions and discharging the duties of the office of the Speaker of the 2nd Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition; (f) for ad interim ex parte relief in terms of prayer (e) above; and (g) for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require." 7. The respondent No. 1 is represented at the hearing by the learned Counsel Shri Ashok Desai, Senior Advocate, who made it clear at the outset that the respondent No. 1 did not concede to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain this writ petition in view of the constitutional immunity available to respondent No. 1 and all its officers under Article 212(1) and Article 212(2) of the Constitution of India. The respondents No. 3 and 4 are represented by the learned Advocate General for the State of Goa who also made it clear that he was so appearing in these proceedings without prejudice to his contention that this Hon'ble Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition in view of the constitutional provisions contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of India. The respondents Nos. 2 and 5 were not represented at the hearing. We shall examine the preliminary objection as well as other relevant contentions to the extent necessary. 8. Before we set out the material events which took place on 16th January, 1995, as emerging from the official record of the respondent No. 1 as well as the averments made in the petition and discuss the grounds of challenge as well as the preliminary objections as to maintainability of the petition, etc., we propose to refer to relevant and applicable provisions of the Constitution and the relevant rules forming part of the Rules made by the State Legislature under Article 208 of the Constitution. (i) Article 178 of the Constitution of India reads as under:- "Article 178:- The Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly- Every Legislative Assembly of a State shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the Assembly to be representatively Speaker and Deputy Speaker thereof and, so often as the office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker becomes vacant, the Assembly shall choose another member to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be." (ii) Article 180 of the Constitution of India reads as under:- "Article 180. Power of the Deputy Speaker or other person to perform the duties of the office of, or to act as, Speaker—- (1) While the office of Speaker is vacant, the duties of the office shall be performed by the Deputy Speaker or, if the office of Deputy Speaker is also vacant, by such member of the Assembly as the Governor may appoint for the purpose." (iii) Article 208 of the Constitution of India reads as under:- "Article 208. Rules of procedure—- (1) A House of Legislature of a State may make rules for regulating subject to the provisions of this Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business. (2) Until rules are made under Clause (1), the Rules of Procedure and Standing Orders in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution with respect to the Legislature for the corresponding Province shall effect in relation to the Legislature of the State subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be made therein by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, or the Chairman of the Legislative Council, as the case may be. (3) In a State having a Legislative Council the Governor, after consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Chairman of the Legislative Council, may make Rules as to the procedure with respect to communications between the two Houses." (iv) Article 212 of the Constitution of India reads as under:- "Article 212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature.—(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. (2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution, for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers." We shall now refer to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Goa Legislative Assembly insofar as the same have bearing on this petition. (v) Rule 8(1) of the said rules provides that the election of Speaker shall be held on such date as the Governor may fix and the Secretary shall send to every Member a notice thereof. (v) Rule 8(1) of the said rules provides that the election of Speaker shall be held on such date as the Governor may fix and the Secretary shall send to every Member a notice thereof. Rule 8(2) provides for filing of nominations by the Members concerned in respect of proposed election. Sub-rules (3) to (6) of the said Rules prescribe the procedure for voting by ballot and the mode and manner for exclusion of candidates from election obtaining smallest number of votes as more particularly set out therein. Rule 8(6) of the said Rules can operate only in conjunction with Rule 8(5) of the Rules. Rules 8(5) and 8(6) of the said Rules read as under:- "Rule 8(5). The voting on each motion shall be by ballots. Where more than two candidates have been nominated and at the first ballot no candidate obtains more votes than the aggregate votes obtained by the other candidates, the candidate who has obtained the smallest number of votes shall be excluded from the election and fresh ballots shall take place, the candidate obtaining the smallest number of votes at each ballot being excluded from the election, until one candidate obtains more votes than the remaining candidate or than the aggregate votes of the remaining candidates, as the case may be. Rule 8(6). Where at any ballot any two or more candidates obtain an equal number of votes, the candidate to be excluded from the election under sub-rule (5) shall be determined by drawing lots." (vi) Rules 288(1) and (2) of the said Rules reads as under:—- "Rule 288(1). Decision.—- (1) Votes may be taken by voices or by division and shall be taken by division, if any member so desires. (2) The result of a division shall at once be announced by the Speaker and shall not be challenged." The expression 'division' is defined by the said Rules in section 2(1) as under:- "Section 2(1). "Division" means taking of votes by sending the members to lobbies or by adopting any other method under which preparation of lists of members voting on either side is provided or the number of such members is ascertained." Rules 306 to 309 of the said Rules read as under:- (vii) "Rule 306. "Division" means taking of votes by sending the members to lobbies or by adopting any other method under which preparation of lists of members voting on either side is provided or the number of such members is ascertained." Rules 306 to 309 of the said Rules read as under:- (vii) "Rule 306. Suspension of rules - Any member my with the consent of the Speaker, move that any rule may be suspended in its application to a particular motion before the House and if the motion is carried, the rule in question shall be suspended for the time being. The Speaker shall decide the procedure to be followed in such a case." (viii) "Rule 307. Interpretation and removal of difficulties- If any doubt arises as to the interpretation of any of the provisions of these rules, the decision of the Speaker shall be final." (ix) "Rule 308. Residuary powers - All matters not specifically provided for in these rules and all questions relating to the detailed working of these rules shall be regulated in such manner as the Speaker may from time to time direct." (x) "Rule 309. Speaker's decision not to be questioned - No decision of the Speaker in respect of disallowance of any resolution or question or in respect of any other matter shall be questioned." 9. We shall now summarise the relevant facts having bearing on the subject matter of this petition. Relevant Facts (Part I) (a) On 11th January, 1995, the Goa Legislature Secretaries issued a notice inviting attention of Members to Sub-rules (2) to (6) of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Goa Legislative Assembly and invited notice of motion for nominations for election of Speaker on or before 12.00 noon on Sunday the 15th January, 1995. On the same day, the Goa Legislature Secretariat issued another notice/Bulletin explaining the procedure to be followed for election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. It was inter alia stated in the said notice:—- "The counting will be done by the Secretary in the Assembly Hall. Only the candidate and one other Member of his choice will be permitted to be present at the counting. It was inter alia stated in the said notice:—- "The counting will be done by the Secretary in the Assembly Hall. Only the candidate and one other Member of his choice will be permitted to be present at the counting. The House will reassemble after the counting is over when the result will be declared by the chair." Routine instructions to voters appended to the said notice provide that if the mark indicating the vote thereon is placed in such manner as to make it doubtful to which candidate the vote has been given, such a vote shall be considered invalid. The procedure explained in Bulletin Part II No. 6 8 dated 11th January, 1995 issued by the Goa Legislature Secretariat was adopted by the House. The proceedings for election of Speaker were commenced on 16th January, 1995 at 11 a.m. The respondent No. 2 in his capacity as Speaker Pro-tem stated at the outset that only the nomination of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were received on his behalf by the Goa Legislature Secretariat. It was then announced that the House will proceed to elect the Speaker by ballot. (b) As required by the Rules, a motion was moved by Shri Luizinho Faleiro, a Member of the House to the effect that the respondent No. 5 be elected to the office of the Speaker of the House. Shri Shripad Y. Naik proposed that the petitioner be elected to the office of the Speaker of the House. (c) The Assembly consists of 40 Members. The return of the General Elections to the Assembly held in November, 1994 was as under:- Congress I ... 18 Members Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP) ... 12 Members Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ... 4 Members United Goans Democratic Party (UGDP) ... 3 Members Independents ... 3 Members (d) The ballot papers were distributed amongst the Members. The voting commenced. All the 40 Members cast their votes. At that stage, the Members indicated their choice on the ballot paper by stamping by rubber stamp in the space reserved for the candidate of their choice in the ballot paper. 3 Members Independents ... 3 Members (d) The ballot papers were distributed amongst the Members. The voting commenced. All the 40 Members cast their votes. At that stage, the Members indicated their choice on the ballot paper by stamping by rubber stamp in the space reserved for the candidate of their choice in the ballot paper. It appears from Annexure p. 3, i.e. the official text of the proceedings concerning election of Speaker held on 16th January, 1995, that at about 1.29 p.m. the respondent No. 2 made a specific observation to the effect that he was not prepared to decide on the validity of two votes in dispute as no specific provision was made in the Rules in this behalf so as to enable him to decide the controversy. It is averred in the petition that one of the said two votes was already ascertained by the officials of Legislature to be invalid (not the Speaker Pro-tem) and the other ballot paper in dispute the stamp put by the voter had intruded to the extent of 80% in the space reserved for the petitioner. Perhaps the situation was not quite clear. It is not for this Court to adjudicate upon the validity of these two votes. It is neither necessary nor possible for this Court to express an opinion on the question as to what would have been the ultimate result if the said two votes were held to be valid or invalid as the case may be. It is not possible for the Court to direct respondent No. 2 to decide on the validity of these votes. The process of election by ballot was abandoned by the House and substituted by the procedure of 'Voice Vote' a permissible procedure for holding of election. The change in procedure of voting was adopted by the House itself. The respondents No. 1 and 2 were entitled to do so. No judicial review is permissible in respect of exercise of necessary powers by respondent No. 2 under the Rules made under Article 208 of the Constitution of India. Relevant Facts (Part II) 9(b). Mauvin Godinho, a Member of the House moved the following motion, for being considered by the House as permissible under Rule 306 of the relevant Rules:—- ".. No judicial review is permissible in respect of exercise of necessary powers by respondent No. 2 under the Rules made under Article 208 of the Constitution of India. Relevant Facts (Part II) 9(b). Mauvin Godinho, a Member of the House moved the following motion, for being considered by the House as permissible under Rule 306 of the relevant Rules:—- ".. that the voting procedure laid down in Rule 8(5) for the election of the Speaker be suspended and I suggest that the procedure followed in the Lok Sabha and many other State Legislatures of voice vote and if necessary by division be practiced here, Speaker, Sir, what is being followed in Parliament." After some discussion, the said motion was put to vote and carried. Rule 288 of the said Rules provides for taking of a decision in respect of every matter concerning conduct of business by a voice vote. No Member applied for 'division' as permissible under the rules. Thereafter the Members voted at the election of Speaker openly by resorting to procedure of voice vote as done also in Lok Sabha and as permissible under Rule 288 of the Rules herein. After the abovereferred motion was carried out, the respondent No. 2 in his capacity as the Speaker Pro-tem explained the resultant situation in the following words:- "The Speaker pro-tem:- The motion is that Rule 8(5) is suspended in its application and the voice vote followed." The motion was carried. The House proceeded to elect the Speaker by voice vote. Once again, the nominations received by the Legislature Secretariat, from the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 were announced and the Members were asked to cast their votes according to their choice by following the procedure of 'voice vote'. The Speaker (Pro-tem) again and again informed the Members that the Members could ask for 'division' if they so desired. No Member asked for 'division.' Relevant Facts (part III) 9(c). Shri Luizinho Faleiro moved the motion to the effect that the respondent No. 5 be elected to the office of Speaker of the House. The said motion was put to vote and carried. Since the said motion was carried, it was (sic) not necessary to put the second motion for election of the petitioner as Speaker to the vote of the House. The said motion was put to vote and carried. Since the said motion was carried, it was (sic) not necessary to put the second motion for election of the petitioner as Speaker to the vote of the House. The Speaker (Pro-tem) declared the result of election as under:- "Now I announce that Hon. Shri Cardozo Lamberto Tomazinho as proposed by Hon. Shri Luizinho Faleiro is elected as Speaker of the House." The Hon'ble the Chief Minister escorted the Hon'ble Speaker to the Chair. At no point of time, the petitioner was declared as elected Speaker of the House by the Pro-tem Speaker. 9(d). Since then the respondent No. 5 is discharging his duties as Speaker of the House. No Member has moved any motion for expressing 'no confidence' in respondent No. 5 It is safe to infer that the respondent No. 5 was able to secure support of the majority during the course of voting by voice vote as reflected by the text of the official proceedings dated 16th January, 1995, and respondent No. 5 continues to enjoy the support of majority of the Members of the House even today. 10. The petitioner has alleged and averred in the petition as under:—- (a) The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 separated the votes cast for the petitioner and respondent No. 5. It was found that 39 valid votes were cast and one vote was invalid it being difficult to decide for whom it was intended upon visual inspection of the stamp on the ballot paper. (b) At the end of the separation of the ballot papers the count showed that the petitioner had polled 20 and the respondent No. 5 had polled 19 valid votes. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 prepared themselves to leave the Assembly Hall alongwith the ballot papers for the purpose of making their report to respondent No. 2. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had no authority in law to take any decision in the matter. At this stage, Shri Luizinho Faleiro, the representative of respondent No. 5 complained that one of the 20 votes counted for the petitioner was invalid as the stamp put by the voter on the said ballot paper intruded in the space reserved for the petitioner to the extent of 80%. All this created heat, tension and disputes. (c) The respondents Nos. All this created heat, tension and disputes. (c) The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 apprised the result of the count and dispute raised in respect of doubtful votes to respondent No. 2. During 11.45 a.m. and 1.28 p.m., the respondent No. 2 was stormed in his chamber by the leaders of Congress I named in para 6.3 of the petition with a pleading that the ballot paper objected to by Shri Luizinho Faleiro was invalid. (d) (i) At 1.29 p.m., the respondent No. 2 came out of his chamber and give the following ruling as recorded in the official proceedings of the House dated 16th January, 1995 annexed to the petition. The said ruling states that the respondent No. 2 could not decide upon the validity of two votes in dispute as the procedure to be adopted in such cases had not been prescribed in the Rules. It must be stated here and now that the House was entitled in law to suspend Rule 8(5) and resort to election of the Speaker by voice vote of members and follow the procedure similar to procedure followed in Lok Sabha and resort to procedure of conducting election of Speaker by voice vote at that stage. Members of Legislature are expected to make their choice of Speaker freely and independently whether the voting is done by ballot or by voice vote. It cannot be assumed that voting by voice vote was not free and Members voted in respect of election of Speaker by voice vote as a result of any pressure. (d) (ii) The reasoning given by the respondent No. 2 for not adjudicating upon the validity of two doubtful votes may perhaps be not quite accurate. This aspect of the case is irrelevant for purpose of deciding this petition. The Court is not entitled to adjudicate upon the validity of ruling given by respondent No. 2 at 1.29 p.m. as set out in the proceedings. The respondent No. 2 could perhaps decide upon the validity of doubtful votes on general principles after visual inspection of ballots in dispute. The respondent No. 2 decided to consent to a member of the House proposing that Rule 8(5) be suspended and the election of Speaker be conducted by the voice vote and put such motion to vote for decision of the House. The respondent No. 2 decided to consent to a member of the House proposing that Rule 8(5) be suspended and the election of Speaker be conducted by the voice vote and put such motion to vote for decision of the House. The respondent No. 2 was not bound to decide the dispute as to validity of doubtful votes. This Court cannot compel the respondent No. 2 to decide the said controversy. With respect, all this controversy is meaningless in view of subsequent events and latest ruling of respondent No. 2 and the majority decision of the House on following of procedure of voice vote for holding of the election and declaration of ultimate result. The respondents No. 3 and 4 had no authority in law to declare any particular vote as invalid or valid. The respondents No. 3 and 4 were merely to make a report of the count to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 never declared that 39 valid votes were cast as alleged by the petitioner and the petitioner had obtained 20 valid votes as a result of ballots. In our opinion, the abovereferred allegations are now irrelevant in view of the undisputed subsequent events which took place in the House pertaining to election of respondent No. 5 as Speaker of the House by voice vote. Since the respondent No. 5 was duly elected as Speaker after following the permissible procedure of conducting election by voice vote, it is now irrelevant to inquire as to whether the Speaker was bound to take decision on the question of validity of doubtful votes as contended by the petitioner and declare the petitioner as duly elected Speaker. We shall take the facts as they are from the official proceedings of the Legislature annexed to the petition. We must therefore hold that the allegations made in the petition which are not borne out by the official proceedings of the Legislature remain on record as unproved allegations. We have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the factual disputes in respect of what happened in the House and scrutinize the rulings of respondent No. 2 or the decision of the House. The presumption attached to the correctness of the official proceedings as recorded is not rebutted. We have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the factual disputes in respect of what happened in the House and scrutinize the rulings of respondent No. 2 or the decision of the House. The presumption attached to the correctness of the official proceedings as recorded is not rebutted. No adverse inference can be drawn in the matter merely because no affidavit in reply is filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 in view of their stand that the petition is barred by virtue of the Constitutional immunity conferred on the officers of the Legislature under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of India. (e) It is clear from the official proceedings in respect whereof no dispute is raised even by the petitioner that at or about the same time Shri Mauvin Godinho, a Member of the House moved the following motion in the House with the consent of respondent No.2 in pursuance of Rule 306 of the Rules of Procedure of the House: "That the voting procedure laid down in Rule 8(5) for the election of the Speaker be suspended." The Hon'ble Member also suggested that the procedure followed in the Lok Sabha and many other State Legislatures of voice vote and if necessary by division be practiced here. Soon after discussion of the said procedure, the following resolution was passed by the House as recorded in the proceedings of the House. No factual dispute is raised by the petitioner in this behalf. "The Speaker Pro-tem: The motion is that the voting procedure laid down in Rule 8(5) for the election of the Speaker be suspended." "Motion proposed. Motion put to vote and carried." It is further recorded in the official proceedings as under:- "Shri Luizinho Faleiro: Since the motion is moved and passed to suspend Rule 8(5), I move the motion. I beg to move that the Hon. Member Shri Cardozo Lamberto Tomazinho be elected to the office of the Speaker of this House." "The Speaker Pro-tem: "The motion is that Rule 8(5) is suspended in its application and voice vote followed." At 1.35 p.m., the Speaker Pro-tem once again informed the House that the nominations of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 had been received for election to the office of the Speaker. At this stage, the Speaker gave the following ruling:- "Since Rule 8(5) is suspended in its application and the voting procedure issued vide Bulletin part II No. 6 and Bulletin part II No. 8 dated 11th January, 1995 will not be operative and instead of that the following procedure will be followed. As more than one Member are contesting, the House will now proceed to elect the Speaker by voice vote." No division was asked for. Mr. Luizinho Faleiro moved the following motion:- "Sir, I beg to move that the Hon. Member Shri Cardozo Lamberto Tomazinho be elected to the office of Speaker of this House." No one raised any objection to this procedure being followed at this stage. The later part of the Official Proceedings reads as under:—- "Motion proposed. Motion put to vote and carried." Since this motion was carried, there was no occasion or necessity to put the second motion pertaining to the proposed election of the petitioner as Speaker to the vote of the House. The correctness of the official proceedings referred to hereinabove is not in dispute. Thereafter the respondent No.2 as the Speaker (Pro-tem) declared the result as under:- "Now I announce that the Hon. Shri Cardozo Lamberto Tomazinho, as proposed by Hon. Shri Luizinho Faleiro is elected as Speaker of the House." In our opinion, in view of the decision of the House to elect respondent No. 5 as Speaker by voice vote as actually done, it is totally irrelevant to refer to the ruling given by the Speaker at 1.29 p.m. declining to adjudicate upon the controversy in respect of two doubtful votes. We cannot speculate and indulge into conjecture as to what would have been the decision of respondent No. 2 if he had decided on the validity of two doubtful votes. The respondent No. 2 did not declare result of the election originally commenced by procedure of holding election by ballot in view of his decision to change the procedure, which he was entitled to do under the Rules and conduct the election by voice vote. If the respondent No. 2 would have declared the result of the ballot and announced the name of the candidate elected by the House as a Speaker as a result of ballot, no re-election by voice vote, would have been permissible. Such is not the situation in this case. If the respondent No. 2 would have declared the result of the ballot and announced the name of the candidate elected by the House as a Speaker as a result of ballot, no re-election by voice vote, would have been permissible. Such is not the situation in this case. The procedure of holding election of the Speaker by ballot could not be completed due to disputes in respect of doubtful ballots or for whatever reasons, no results of ballot were declared by respondent No. 2, the process of holding election by ballot remained incomplete and inconclusive and the same was abandoned by the vote of majority in the House. It was open to the House to suspend Rule 8(5) of the Rules and hold election of the Speaker by voice vote giving a fair opportunity to the Members to ask for division if they so desired. The challenge to the proceedings concerning election of Speaker is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. In any event, there is no merit in the challenge whatever. The respondent No. 2 acted throughout bona fide and within the scope of his powers. The impugned action of respondent No. 2 is referable to one or the other Rule of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. The election of respondent No. 5 as a Speaker of the House does not and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Dispute as to alleged non-compliance of one or the other Rules of Procedure or in respect of interpretation or application or non-application of the Rules merely leads to alleged breach of procedure, if at all, within the meaning of the said expression used in Article 212(1) of the Constitution and nothing more. The Court is therefore not entitled to entertain this petition on such grounds. 11. We shall now deal with the submissions formulated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner one-by-one. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Article 212(1) of the Constitution does not apply to the proceedings of the Assembly held on 16th January, 1995 for election of the Speaker. We do not agree. Proceedings for election of the Speaker are part of business of the Legislature. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Article 212(1) of the Constitution does not apply to the proceedings of the Assembly held on 16th January, 1995 for election of the Speaker. We do not agree. Proceedings for election of the Speaker are part of business of the Legislature. Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India is applicable to all proceedings of the Legislature concerning conduct of its business including the business of electing the Speaker under Article 178 of the Constitution and under the Rules made under Article 208 thereof. Article 212(1) of the Constitution is not restricted in its operation to legislative business properly so called. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the composition of the State Legislature is complete only after the Speaker is duly chosen under Article 178 of the Constitution. We do not agree. The Legislature is constituted on issue of Notification under section 73 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Proceedings in the Legislature commenced on the House being summoned under the Chairmanship of the Speaker Pro-tem. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rule 310 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business for Goa Legislative Assembly in support of his submission that the proceedings of the Assembly for election of the Speaker are not protected under Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India. In our opinion reference to Article 310 of the Rules of Procedure is irrelevant for this purpose. Even administering oath or affir-to the election Members of the House by the Speaker Pro-tem is part of the business of the Legislature. Even these proceedings are protected by Article 212(1) and Article 212(2) of the Constitution. 14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the expression "proceedings in the Legislature" used in Article 212(1) of the Constitution means only such proceedings which are chaired by the elected Speaker. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the proceedings in the Legislature chaired by the Speaker Pro-tem are not under the contemplation of Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India. We do not agree. Proceedings of the Legislature chaired by the Speaker Pro-tem are as much protected under Article 212(1) and Article 212(2) of the Constitution as the proceedings chaired by the elected Speaker. 15. We do not agree. Proceedings of the Legislature chaired by the Speaker Pro-tem are as much protected under Article 212(1) and Article 212(2) of the Constitution as the proceedings chaired by the elected Speaker. 15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Article 212(1) bars judicial inquiry by a Court of law in respect of validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of the State merely on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India says so. It is not our view that the validity of the proceedings in the Legislature of the State cannot be called in question even if the same are unconstitutional or even if the same are illegal. In this case the election of the Speaker is challenged on the ground of alleged irregularity of procedure. No judicial inquiry in respect of validity of proceedings concerning election of the respondent No. 5 as Speaker on this ground is permissible. There is no merit in the allegation of mala fide and bias whatsoever. There is no merit whatsoever in the submission that the procedure of conducting election of the Speaker by voice vote if held applicable to election of the Speaker would be violative of the fundamental right of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The provision of law contained in Rule 288 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business permitting taking of decision by voice vote or by division if any Member so desires, is perfectly valid. The said provision is applicable and can be made applicable even to election of the Speaker. If the Member of the Legislature are required to vote openly by voice vote instead of by secret ballot, no fundamental right of the Member of the Legislature is thereby violated. Election of the Speaker by voice vote is one of the recognized methods of holding election even in Lok Sabha. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the protection of Article 212(2) of the Constitution of India is not available to respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It is not necessary to decide this contention as the respondents No. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to the petition and impugned decision is of respondent No. 2 or of the respondent No. 1 alone. 17. 3 and 4. It is not necessary to decide this contention as the respondents No. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to the petition and impugned decision is of respondent No. 2 or of the respondent No. 1 alone. 17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the immunity conferred by Article 212(2) of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by respondent No. 2 on various grounds set out in his written proposition No. 5. There is no merit in this contention also. While the respondent No. 2. was an officer of the State Legislature while conducting the proceedings as Speaker Pro-tem, the respondent No. 2 was Speaker for all purposes at the material time though not the elected Speaker. The respondent No. 2 had all the powers to regulate the procedure or conduct the business of the House on par with the powers of the elected Speaker under the Constitution as well as under the Rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution of India. It appears that most of the sub-propositions formulated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are in the nature of repetition and require no separate treatment. As regards the plea of alleged mala fide in relation to ruling of respondent No. 2 announced at 1.29 p.m., we are of the view that the said alleged plea is irrelevant in view of the subsequent decision of the House to suspend Rule 8(5) of the Rules of Procedure, conduct the election of the Speaker by voice vote and adopt the motion for election of respondent No. 5 as a Speaker by voice vote. In any event, the allegations of mala fide and bias imputed to respondent No. 2 while giving his ruling at 1.29 p.m. as recorded in the official proceedings are without any basis. The said allegations remain unproved. In our opinion the respondent No. 2 acted throughout bona fide and within the scope of his powers. We are not prepared to hold that the respondent No. 2 acted dishonestly or acted with mala fide. The declaration of, result of election of respondent No. 5 as a Speaker of the House was in conformity with the decision of the House and the choice of the majority of its Members. The respondent No. 5 appears to enjoy the support of the majority of the Members. The declaration of, result of election of respondent No. 5 as a Speaker of the House was in conformity with the decision of the House and the choice of the majority of its Members. The respondent No. 5 appears to enjoy the support of the majority of the Members. No motion has ever been moved against respondent No. 5 for his removal on the ground that respondent No. 5 does not enjoy the support of the majority of the Members or otherwise. It is surprising that with all this, the allegations of dishonesty and mala fide are imputed to respondent No. 2 which have no base. It is of considerable significance that the respondent No. 2 did not suspend the operation of Rule 8(5) and did not direct the Members to elect the Speaker by voice vote by giving a ruling on his own. The respondent No. 2 left the motion proposing suspension of Rule 8(5) of the Rules and holding of election of the Speaker by voice vote to the House itself. The motion was carried out by the House. Thereafter the election was held. In this situation we do not appreciate the allegations of mala fide and bias imputed to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 was legally entitled not to pronounce on the validity of two doubtful votes and resort to alternate procedure of holding election by voice vote. The respondent No. 2 had not declared the result of the ballot at any point of time. If the result of the ballot was already declared by respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 had declared one or the other candidate duly elected as a result thereof, no re-election could have been perhaps ordered. That is not the situation in this case. 18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action of respondent No. 2 is not interlinked with mere alleged irregularity of procedure but is illegal and unconstitutional. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the election of the office of the Speaker by ballot could not be abandoned midstream. We do not agree. It was open to respondent No. 2 to invoke Rule 306 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business at any point of time before the result of the ballot was declared. We do not agree. It was open to respondent No. 2 to invoke Rule 306 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business at any point of time before the result of the ballot was declared. The respondent No. 2 merely consented to a Member of the House moving the motion that Rule 8(5) of the said Rules be suspended in its application in respect of the proposed election of the Speaker. The ultimate action was of the House itself. We are not persuaded to hold that respondent No. 2 acted illegally and in violation of Article 180(1) of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 2 refused to adjudicate upon the validity of doubtful votes having regard to his own perception of the Rules of Procedure and having regard to his own interpretation of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. Even if respondent No. 2 was in error in his interpretation of the Rules of Procedure while announcing his ruling at 1.29 p.m., it does not follow that the impugned action of the House in suspending Rule 8(5) in its application to the proposed election of the Speaker under Rule 306 was unconstitutional. It is the petitioner's own case that one of the doubtful votes in question had intruded in the space reserved for the petitioner to the extent of 80%. It was thus not very easy to decide the controversy. At least this could be one of the two possible views. The bare possibility of respondent No. 2 having misconceived his powers in respect of adjudication on the validity of doubtful votes has no nexus with the validity of the election of the Speaker conducted by voice vote after suspension of Rule 8(5) of the Rules. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2 committed a fraud on the constitutional mandate of Article 178. We do not agree. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2 committed a fraud on the constitutional mandate of Article 178. We do not agree. A separate application i.e. Application No. 19 of 1995, made by the petitioner to the Court for production of ballot papers is not maintainable in law as the petition itself, as the judicial inquiry into the election of the Speaker is barred under Article 212(1) and Articles 212(2) of the Constitution of India and the scrutiny of the ballot papers at this stage by the Court is uncalled for and is irrelevant in view of the election of the Speaker having been concluded by voice vote with the consent of the House. The said application is thus rejected. 19. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of respondent No. 2 in suspending sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 is illegal and unconstitutional. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 was suspended by the House of Legislature by adopting a motion moved for the said purpose with the consent of the Speaker. The respondent No. 2 is thus not at all responsible for suspension of sub-rule (5) of Rule 8. The impugned action is not unconstitutional. We do not agree that Rule 306 could not be applied to the election of Speaker. Rule 288 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Legislative Assembly applies to all business of whatsoever nature which can be described as the business of the Legislature. Rule 288 of the said Rules is applicable also to the proceedings concerning election of Speaker. The procedure for electing Speaker by voice vote is not unconstitutional and is not violative of Article 19(1)(a) or Article 178 of the Constitution of India. 20. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a petition for issue of writ of quo warranto lies also against the Speaker of the Legislature in an appropriate case. We agree. In an appropriate case the Court may issue a writ of quo warranto if it is shown that the purported election of the Speaker is unconstitutional or is illegal. We agree. In an appropriate case the Court may issue a writ of quo warranto if it is shown that the purported election of the Speaker is unconstitutional or is illegal. In an appropriate case the Court may refuse to issue such a writ in exercise of its discretion if it is found that the person claiming to be the Speaker enjoys the support of the majority of the Members of the House and it would be futile to issue such a writ. 21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 2 was in the position of a Returning Officer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 was in the position of a Tribunal. We do not agree. The respondent No. 2 as a Speaker Pro-tem was Speaker of the House for all purposes with all powers, privileges and immunities until the Speaker was elected in conformity with Article 178 of the Constitution of India. It was the privilege of the Speaker Pro-tem to deviate from the procedure followed earlier, allow a Member of the House to move a motion for consideration of the House, to suspend a particular Rule of Procedure which was followed earlier and conduct the election of the Speaker by voice vote. No factual dispute whatsoever has been raised by the petitioner in respect of the motion moved by the Member of the House with the consent of respondent No. 2 to suspend Rule 8(5) of the Rules and conduct the election of the Speaker by voice vote. No factual dispute is raised whatsoever in respect of the ultimate conclusion of the respondent No. 2 and declaration of the result of the election by the respondent No. 2. In other words, the respondent No. 5 was declared elected as Speaker admittedly in accordance with the wishes of the majority expressed by voice vote, no division having been asked for by any Member. The result of the ballot held earlier remained undeclared. The process of ballot remained incomplete and inconclusive. No judicial inquiry in this aspect is permissible. 22. We have no hesitation in holding that prayer made in the petition for a declaration that the petitioner was duly chosen by election as Speaker of respondent No. 1 Assembly at 1.29 p.m. is totally misconceived in law. The process of ballot remained incomplete and inconclusive. No judicial inquiry in this aspect is permissible. 22. We have no hesitation in holding that prayer made in the petition for a declaration that the petitioner was duly chosen by election as Speaker of respondent No. 1 Assembly at 1.29 p.m. is totally misconceived in law. This Court has no jurisdiction to declare the petitioner as elected Speaker of the House. No such declaration was made by respondent No. 2 also at any point of time. We have no hesitation in rejecting prayers (a) to (e) of the petition. 23. We shall now refer to the relevant authorities cited at the Bar and show that our conclusions are duly supported by the ratio of the relevant case law. 24. In (State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh)1, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 252, one of the questions required to be decided by the Apex Court was as to whether the impugned Madhya Pradesh Act was not duly passed in view of the admitted fact that no question was put by the Speaker at the third reading of the Bill on the motion that it be passed into law as required by the provisions of Rule 20(1) of the Rules governing legislative business then imposed. The Court was required to consider as to whether the said omission was a mere "irregularity of procedure" which the Court was barred from inquiring into under Article 212(1) of the Constitution. The official report of the proceedings did not set out that the motion was put to vote and carried. The original bill signed and authenticated by the Speaker contained an endorsement by the Speaker that the Bill was passed by the Assembly on 5th April, 1950. Mahajan, J., speaking for the Court observed in para 22 of his abovereferred judgment that in any case, the omission to put the motion formally to the House, even if true, was, in the circumstances, no more than a mere irregularity of procedure. The Supreme Court further observed that it was not disputed that the overwhelming majority of the Members present and voting were in favour of carrying the motion. The Court held that Article 212(1) of the Constitution was attracted. In our case also the motion proposing election of respondent No. 5 as Speaker of the House was voted upon and carried by majority by voice vote. The Court held that Article 212(1) of the Constitution was attracted. In our case also the motion proposing election of respondent No. 5 as Speaker of the House was voted upon and carried by majority by voice vote. To this extent there is no dispute. The factual dispute raised by the petitioner is to the effect that the respondent No. 2 ought not to have suspended Rule 8(5) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business and ought not to have resorted to voice vote for election of the Speaker once the process of election was initiated by ballot itself. This case shows as to how Article 212(1) of the Constitution was applied by the Apex Court in matters most vital and crucial. 25. In (M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha others)2, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1186, B.P. Sinha, C.J., speaking for the Apex Court observed in para 10 of his judgment that the validity of the proceedings inside the Legislature of a State could not be called in question on the ground that the procedure laid down by the law had not been strictly followed. The Apex Court held that Article 212 of the Constitution was a complete answer to this part of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. The Apex Court further held as under :—- "No Court can go into those questions which are within the special jurisdiction of the Legislature itself, which has the power to conduct its own business." It is well-settled law that the Legislature can deviate from the Rules of Procedure or suspend the operation of the Rules even after following the prescribed procedure for sometime and the Court cannot inquire into the validity of the legislative proceedings on the ground that the Rule framed under Article 208 of the Constitution (in this case Rule 8(5) of the Rules) ought not to have been suspended or deviated from in view of the availability of immunity from the judicial scrutiny contained in Article 212(1) and Article 212(2) of the Constitution of India. 26. In (M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. The State of Mysore and another)3, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 589, Kapur, J., speaking for the Court observed that Article 212 prohibited the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State from being called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. 26. In (M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. The State of Mysore and another)3, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 589, Kapur, J., speaking for the Court observed that Article 212 prohibited the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State from being called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. The Court held that the provisions contained in Article 255 of the Constitution laying down the requirements as to recommendation and previous sanction were liable to be recorded merely as matters of procedure. It was held that the impugned tax could not be challenged on the ground that the procedure prescribed by Articles 198, 199 and 207 of the Constitution were not valid in view of the provisions contained in Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India read with Article 255 of the Constitution. 27. In (State of Punjab v. L. Satya Pal Dang others)4, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 903, the Supreme Court was examining the question as to whether the certificate of the Deputy Speaker in respect of the impugned money bill could be assailed on the ground that the requisite certificate could be issued only by the Speaker on a true construction of Article 199(4) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 199(4) of the Constitution were not mandatory but only directory. The Court held that if the framers of the Constitution saw the necessity of providing a Deputy Speaker to act as the Speaker during the latter's absence or to perform the office of the Speaker when the office of the Speaker was vacant, it stood to reason that the Constitution could have never reposed a power of certification absolutely in the Speaker and the Speaker alone. In the context of this controversy, in para 33 of its judgment the Supreme Court referred to Article 212(1) of the Constitution which provides that the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity or procedure. The Court held that Article 212(1) of the Constitution could be invoked in respect of money bills also. All these cases show that Article 212 of the Constitution is actually applied by the courts in many cases. 28. In (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964)5, also, (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 745 at pgs. The Court held that Article 212(1) of the Constitution could be invoked in respect of money bills also. All these cases show that Article 212 of the Constitution is actually applied by the courts in many cases. 28. In (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964)5, also, (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 745 at pgs. 767/768), the Supreme Court interpreted Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India in para 62 of its Advisory Notes. In para 62 of the said opinion Gajendragadkar, C.J., speaking for the Apex Court observed that Article 212(1) of the Constitution laid down that validity of any proceedings of a State could not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. The learned Judge further observed that the citizen could however impugn the legislative proceedings on the ground of illegality and unconstitutionality. The controversy relating to action or inaction having bearing on the interpretation, applicability and enforcement of Rules of Procedure or the alleged breach thereof falls under Article 212 of the Constitution. It is however obvious to us that the expression "alleged irregularity of procedure" cannot be equated to mean "on any ground whatsoever" and cannot be used as a magic band to bar writ petitions on other grounds. We shall set out some illustrations to highlight the point. Suppose the Pro-tem Speaker appointed by the Governor is not from amongst the Members of the House, the impugned appointment would be unconstitutional. Suppose even non-members are allowed to vote at the election of the Speaker the election is liable to be challenged on the ground that the same is "unconstitutional". These illustrations throw some light on the scope and ambit of Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India. It is not alleged by the petitioner in the petition that the impugned election of respondent No. 5 as a Speaker of the Assembly is unconstitutional except making a passing reference to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution in ground (x) in context of election of the Speaker having been held by the voice vote. It is beyond our comprehension as to how the mode of conducting the election of Speaker by voice vote can be characterised as violative of freedom of speech and expression and obstructive of making free and independent choice of the Speaker by the Members of the Legislature. It is beyond our comprehension as to how the mode of conducting the election of Speaker by voice vote can be characterised as violative of freedom of speech and expression and obstructive of making free and independent choice of the Speaker by the Members of the Legislature. Election by voice vote is one of the recognized modes of holding elections in Parliamentary Democracy and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business framed by the Legislature of Goa in terms provide for it. 29. In (K.A. Mathialagan v. Srinivasan and others)6, A.I.R. 1973 Mad. 371 (F.B.) Ramaprasada Rao, J., speaking for the Court observed in para 19 of his judgment rendered on behalf of the Full Bench that the Legislative Assembly of a State had power to deviate from a rule made under Article 208 of the Constitution of India depending upon the exigencies of circumstances at its discretion. The Court held that the House was not responsible to any external authority like the Court for deviation or suspension of any particular rules of procedure. The Court held that over its own internal proceedings the jurisdiction of the House was exclusive and absolute and could not be interfered by courts. It is well-settled law that the Rules made under Article 208 of the Constitution are susceptible to modification or deviation or suspension at the discretion of the majority of Members of the Assembly. It was further held by the Court that departure from the Rules of Procedure could not render the Legislature responsible to the Court for scrutiny of its action even if there had been any irregularity in the procedure adopted by the House. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case the proceedings were chaired by the Speaker elected under Article 178 of the Constitution and not by the Member of the House appointed as Speaker by the Governor under Article 180 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, the ratio of this decision is applicable also to a case where the proceedings in the Legislature are conducted by the Speaker Pro-tem. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio of this decision. 30. In (Jai Singh Rathi and others v. State of Haryana, through the Chief Secy. to Govt. In our opinion, the ratio of this decision is applicable also to a case where the proceedings in the Legislature are conducted by the Speaker Pro-tem. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio of this decision. 30. In (Jai Singh Rathi and others v. State of Haryana, through the Chief Secy. to Govt. Haryana and others)7, A.I.R. 1970 P. H. 379, the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dealt with the plea of mala fide in respect of suspension of the petitioner as a Member of the House. It is useful to make reference to para 19 of the said judgment. It was observed by the Court that Shri M.C. Chagla the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners, had contended that the suspension of the petitioners was mala fide. It was held that the requisite power was exercised by the House of Legislature itself. It was further observed in para 19 of the said judgment as under :—- "... how could the vote of the House be described as mala fide? How can any motive be attributed to the vote in the House? In my opinion the vote in the House of Legislature cannot ever be said to be mala fide." In this case the petitioner does not impute mala fide to respondent No. 1 but imputes the same to respondent No. 2. The ultimate declaration of the result of election of respondent No. 5 as a Speaker of the House merely reflects the decision of the House itself. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to distinguish this case without there being any basis for distinguishing the same. 31. In (Godavaris Misra v. Nandakisore Das, Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly, Opposite Party)8, A.I.R. 1953 Ori. 111, the High Court of Orissa held that it was not the function of the High Court to re-examine the questions with reference to the Rules and to decide whether the Speaker's construction of the Rules or his application of the Rules to the questions that were placed before him were correct. It was held that the Rules conferred on him the power to decide these matters. The powers of the Speaker Pro-tem are co-extensive with the powers of elected Speaker. It was held that the Rules conferred on him the power to decide these matters. The powers of the Speaker Pro-tem are co-extensive with the powers of elected Speaker. It was held that the phrase, "in respect of", in Article 212 had wider connotation than the word "in" and so long as the Speaker's action was relatable to any of the provisions dealing with his powers for regulating the procedure and conduct of business in the Legislature, the Court's jurisdiction was ousted. An authority who is conferred jurisdiction to decide a question may decide it rightly or wrongly or may refuse to decide it or adopt a permissible alternative procedure with the approval of the majority in the House. The question of propriety of the impugned decision of the Speaker Pro-tem is not justiciable. 32. We shall now refer to four judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and consider as to whether the ratio of the said judgments is applicable to this case and as to whether the petitioner can derive legitimate assistance from the said decisions. 33. In (A. Nesamony v. T.M. Varghese and another)9, A.I.R. 1952 Travancore-Cochin 66, it was held that a person duly elected as Speaker of the Travancore-Cochin Legislative Assembly continued to hold the office till 26th January, 1950 and even thereafter by virtue of the provisions recited therein including Article 372(1) of the Constitution. It was held that in an appropriate case the Court could issue a writ of quo warranto against the Speaker. There can be no dispute about the propositions of law laid down in this case. In our opinion the ratio of this case does not assist the petitioner, in this case. It is not proved that the respondent has usurped the office of the Speaker as alleged. The same is the ratio of the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Bharat in the case of (Anand Bihari Mishra v. Ram Sahay)10, A.I.R. 1952 Madhya Bharat 31. 34. In (State of Kerala v. R. Sundarsan Babu others)11, A.I.R. 1984 Ker. 1 (F.B.), the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court was required to consider as to whether notice could be issued to the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and the Secretary. 34. In (State of Kerala v. R. Sundarsan Babu others)11, A.I.R. 1984 Ker. 1 (F.B.), the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court was required to consider as to whether notice could be issued to the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and the Secretary. Kerala Legislative Assembly in respect of the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining of the fact that a pass for Assembly Session was not issued by the officers of the Assembly to one of the accredited press representatives. In this case the question involved was of alleged violation of the freedom of the press guaranteed as part of the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. With respect, this case has no relevance whatsoever. 35. In (S. Ramchandra, M.L.A. v. Hon'ble Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and others)12, A.I.R. 1994 Mad. 332, the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly had purported to decide the question as to whether the petitioner, M.L.A. had been removed from the primary membership of the party to which the Member belonged. It was held by the High Court of Madras that if the action of the Speaker was shown to be without jurisdiction, the impugned order could be reviewed by the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In this case all the impugned actions of respondent No. 2 were and are within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 under the Constitution as well as the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Goa Legislative Assembly framed under Article 208 of the Constitution of India. With respect this case also is of no relevance for our purpose. 36. In our opinion none of the cases cited above assist the petitioner except to a limited extent as indicated hereinafter. An election of Speaker can be challenged before a Court of law on ground of unconstitutionality or illegality not emanating from alleged breach of Rules of Procedure. However, the alleged unconstitutionality or alleged illegality is not established on behalf of the petitioner. The impugned election of respondent No. 5 is thus valid and lawful. In our opinion, the ratio of cases cited above assists the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in respect of their preliminary contention as well as other submissions. However, the alleged unconstitutionality or alleged illegality is not established on behalf of the petitioner. The impugned election of respondent No. 5 is thus valid and lawful. In our opinion, the ratio of cases cited above assists the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in respect of their preliminary contention as well as other submissions. We have no hesitation in accepting the submissions of learned Counsel Sarvashri Ashok Desai and V.B. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the State of Goa and dismiss the petition. 37. In the result, we hold that this writ petition is not maintainable in law and is barred under Article 212(1) as well as Article 212(2) of the Constitution of India insofar as the petition challenges the ruling of respondent No. 2 announced at 1.29 p.m. and insofar as it challenges the election of respondent No. 5 on the ground of non-declaration of result of the ballot, suspension of Rule 8(5), non-decision on validity of two doubtful votes, not directing drawing of lots, allowing a Member of the House to move the motion for suspension of Rule 8(5) of the Rules and for holding election of the Speaker by voice vote and declaring that the respondent No. 5 was duly elected as a Speaker of the respondent No. 1 by voice vote of the majority. As far as the alleged plea of mala fide and alleged bias imputed to respondent No. 2 in respect of his ruling given at 1.29 p.m. on 16th January, 1995, is concerned, the said pleas are irrelevant in view of the decision of the House to suspend Rule 8(5) of the Rules and conduct the election of the Speaker by voice vote and carrying the motion for electing respondent No. 5 as Speaker of the House. In any event, the said alleged pleas of mala fide and bias are unsubstantiated. The respondent No. 2 acted bona fide and within the scope of his powers at all times while conducting the proceedings of the House on 16th January, 1995 including while giving his ruling at 1.29 p.m. declining to decide the dispute in respect of two doubtful votes and allowing the Member of the House to move the motion for conducting of the election by alternative method of voice vote provided under Rule 288 of the Rules. The procedure for taking decision by resorting to voice vote in the absence of division is applicable to the election of the Speaker and is not violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petition is rejected partly on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and partly on merits, the grounds of mala fide and bias and the ground of alleged violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, having not been substantiated, apart from the same being irrelevant as discussed in the earlier part of the judgment. A writ of quo warranto can be issued by the Court in an appropriate case in exercise of its discretion. If the Court is satisfied that the purported election of the Speaker is unconstitutional or illegal the writ Court can certainly intervene where the alleged illegality is not entertained or interlinked with alleged irregularity of procedure. Even if the respondent No. 2 committed any procedural illegality while giving his ruling at 1.29 p.m., no writ can be issued by the Court in exercise of its discretion as the respondent No. 5 was admittedly elected as Speaker of the House by voice vote of majority. This Court cannot exercise its discretion so as to defeat the wishes expressed by the majority of the Members in the Legislature. If the respondent No. 5 is enjoying the support of the majority of the Members of the House as of 16th January, 1995, as it appears from the later part of the proceedings held on 16th January, 1995, it would be improper to issue a writ of quo warranto sought for. If the respondent No. 5 did not enjoy support of the majority, the motion for election of respondent No. 5 as a Speaker of the House would not have been carried out even by voice vote. No Member of the House asked for division as permissible under Article 288 or the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Goa Legislative Assembly. It is not disputed that the motion to elect respondent No. 5 as a Speaker of the House was carried out by voice vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of Members also. No motion has been moved against respondent No. 5 for his removal under Article 179(c) of the Constitution. It is not disputed that the motion to elect respondent No. 5 as a Speaker of the House was carried out by voice vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of Members also. No motion has been moved against respondent No. 5 for his removal under Article 179(c) of the Constitution. This fact also shows that the respondent No. 5 enjoys the support of majority of Members of the Assembly. On this ground also, the Court refuses to entertain this writ petition in exercise of its judicial discretion. 38. The petition is summarily dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition summarily dismissed. *****