These two civil rules are heard together, the questions raised being identical and, therefore, this single judgment will govern both the cases. 2. Civil Rule No.54 of 1998 is preferred by three of the disqualified MLAs of the Manipur Legislative Assembly namely Shri Sephu Haokip, Shri Basant Kumar Wangkhem and Shri D. Lohri - filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly with a prayer for declaring the order of disqualification dated 29.7.95 to be unlawful, arbitrary malafide and malicious so passed by the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, the copies of which are filed and marked as Annexure A/7 to A/9. The order disqualifying them being passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Speaker under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India,1950 in the light of the satisfaction of the Speaker that the petitioners had voluntarily given up their membership from their political party and also from, being a member of the Congress Legislative Party and as such, found liable to be disqualified under the various provisions of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India,1950. 3. In this writ petition No.54 of 1998, the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly is impleaded as respondent No. l whereas the Election Commission of India as respondent No.2. The petitioners, in this writ petition are represented by their learned counsel Shri BP Sahu whereas respondent No. l is represented by the learned counsel Dr. NK Singh and respondent No.2 by the learned senior counsel Mr. PC Deka. The cause of action in nut shell giving rise to filing of this writ petition, as submitted by Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is the orders passed by the Speaker dated 6.11.97, copies of which are filed and marked as Annexure A/19 to A/21 by virtue of which, as submitted, after dealing with the orders passed by this Court in Civil Rule No.460 of 1995 and 469 of 1995 in which the Bulletin Part II dated 1.7.95 so challenged, the Speaker has shown his inability as to review his previous order of disqualification dated 29.7.95 disqualifying 5 of the sitting MLAs though by the said order dated 6.11.97, a liberty was given by the Speaker to approach the Supreme Court or the Gauhati High Court to seek remedy of their grievances, so, this petition. Civil Rule No.45 of 1998 ^4. Civil Rule No.45 of 1998 ^4. The Civil Rule No.45 of 1998 is being preferred by Shri T. Gouzadou, one of the disqualified MLAs of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, who was also declared disqualified vide Speaker's order dated 29.7.95 detailed above. 5. Mr. L. Nanda Kumar, the learned counsel appeared for the petitioner whereas Dr. NK Singh represented the respondent No.l and Mr. PC Deka, the learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 i.e. the Election Commission of India. Mr. AK Goswami, appeared in this petition representing the respondent No.5 i.e. President, Manipur Congress Committee. Mr. L. Nanda Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri T. Gouzadou submitted that while disqualifying this petitioner along with 4 others vide order dated 29.7.95, the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly rather was misled and would not have relied upon the material so placed before him as the signature said to have been put by the petitioner was a forged one and in this connection, the present petitioner had filed a civil suit before the competent civil Court and the learned civil Court had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The present petitioner on 13.1.98 which led the petitioner as to file the representation before the present Speaker as to review his order which was not so done and as per the order dated 14.1.98 the present Speaker was pleased to dispose of the said representation showing his inability as to review his case because of the tight position of provisions of Schedule 10 of the Constitution of India,1950 though, as submitted by Mr. Nanda Kumar, the learned counsel, liberty was given to the present petitioner as to move the matter before the Supreme Court or the Gauhati High Court for redressal, hence this petition. 6. This will not be out of place to mention that prior to the filing of these two civil rules, the disqualified MLAs right from the year 1995 from the date of disqualification had filed series of cases by way of civil rules, SLPs, writ appeals etc. sometimes challenging the order dated 29.7.95 the order of disqualification and sometimes challenging the Bulletin Part II which was in consequence of the disqualification order. sometimes challenging the order dated 29.7.95 the order of disqualification and sometimes challenging the Bulletin Part II which was in consequence of the disqualification order. In short, looking into the details of the same, it transpires that the said disqualification order was first challenged by filing Civil Rule No.490 of 1995 (Imphal) when after it's being transferred to Principal Seat where the same was numbered as Civil Rule No.3284 of 1995 (Gauhati) in which by filing the Misc Case No,911 of 1995 the petitioners made a prayer for withdrawal of their case which was so accepted though not giving them permission to file such petition having the same cause of action again and this order was so passed by this Court on 11.8.95. Then the disqualified members preferred 4 SLPs before the Apex Court bearing Nos 19126, 19365, 19380 and 1938/95 and the same was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 1.11.95 with that of the review petition being dismissed by the Apex Court on 30.10.96 being petition No.1616-19. There was then writ appeal bearing No.320 of 1996 before the Division Bench of this Court relating to the same matter which was also dismissed on 23.7.96, thereafter, Bulletin Part II dated 1.7.95 was so also challenged under Civil Rule No.469 of 1995 and Civil Rule No.460 of 1995 which also got disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.1.97. This will not be out of place to mention that when Writ Appeal No.320 of 1996 was so dismissed on 23.7.96 by the Division Bench of this Court, another SLP bearing No.16719/96 was so also preferred before the Apex Court which was also dismissed on 4.11.96. Last but not the least, there was also writ appeal so preferred by them bearing No.160/161 of 1997 also being disposed of on 27.6,97 by the Division Bench of this Court threadbare discussing the matter as also reported in 1997 (II) GLT 447, President, Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee (I) Imphal & others vs. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly & others (1997 (2) GLJ 97).. Civil Rule No. 54 of 1998 :7.Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted in nut-shell that he is pretty aware of the situation because of the previous writ petitions, SLPs, writ appeals etc. Civil Rule No. 54 of 1998 :7.Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted in nut-shell that he is pretty aware of the situation because of the previous writ petitions, SLPs, writ appeals etc. so preferred by the petitioners being dismissed particularly on the ground that once the petitioners withdrew their claims in Civil Rule No.3284 of 1995 by filing Misc Petition No.911 of 1995 without giving opportunity as to file petition afresh, the same is causing great hurdle for the petitioner as to seek relief for quashing the disqualification order dated 29.7.95 but, even then the petitioners have mastered up courage as to file this writ petition particularly in the background of the judgment so passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the Civil Rule No,469 of 1995 vide his order dated 22.1.97 by which the learned Single Judge is pleased also to hold that the petitioners have prima facie ground to raise the points. Furthermore, because of the direction as so given by the Speaker vide his order dated 6.11.97, the petitioner is approaching this Court. In this connection, by elaborating his argument it is further pointed out that before passing the order dated 29.7.95, the Speaker had not given chance to the petitioners, their show cause so filed was also not placed and that the Courts have the powers for judicial review of the matter and the prayer so made in the Misc Case No.911 of 1995 in Civil Rule No.3284 of 1995 be not treated as fatal and thunder bolt as to eclipse the stand of the present ' petitioners, hence, by pressing into service particularly this point, the prayer is that disqualification order be declared illegal. 8. The Speaker is represented by Dr. NK Singh, the learned counsel, he has filed two misc petitions in connection with these writ petitions challenging that the copy of the order of the Speaker which is so filed and which is dated 6th November, 1997, is forged one and the Speaker's signature is not genuine and that there was no such direction as to move the matter before the Supreme Court or Gauhati High Court, hence in the misc petition so filed, the prayer is that the petitioners have committed offences coming under the purview of sections 196 and 471 of the IPC and, therefore, a proceeding under section 340 of the CrPC be initiated. Although till hearing date Dr. Singh representing the Speaker had failed to file the original order which is said to have forged and the same could not be produced on behalf of the Speaker, respondent No.l. 9. Mr. PC Deka, the learned senior counsel representing the Election Commission of India has got very short submission to make. It is submitted that there is notification so issued by the Election Commission of India as to hold by-elections of those Legislative Assembly seats, the MLAs of which are declared disqualified which include the petitioners of both these civil rules as well and once such notification is made, it is emphatically argued by Mr. Deka, the learned senior counsel that the mischief of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution comes into operation. It is pointed out that Article 329 (b) of the Constitution is a complete ban on legal proceedings including a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as so challenge the electoral steps taken by the Election Commission and the only remedy to challenge the legality of any notification or election process is by way of filing election petition to be presented after the election is over calling in question the election and no remedy is provided at any intermediate stage. In support of his this contention, Mr. Deka, the learned counsel for the Election Commission of India has also banked upon a reported case AIR 1978 SC 851 , at page 861 paras 17 and 21, Mohinder Singh vs. Chief Election Commissioner, on the same point he has also claimed himself to be fortified by referring to another reported case i.e. AIR 1988 SC 61 , Election Commission of India vs. Shivaji & others, particularly referring to its paragraphs 5 and 6. 10. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.l and 2 in this Civil Rule No.54 of 19981 find that the present writ petition so filed in the garb of some of the observation so made while disposing of Civil Rule No.469 of 1995 on 22.1.97 so passed by the learned Single Judge and that of the orders of the Speaker dated 6.11.97 cannot in any way improve the case of the petitioners for the grant of relief sought for indirectly against the same cause of action which is not considered and rejected several times in civil rules, writ appeals, SLPs and review applications so preferred by the petitioners and dismissed as detailed above. By going through the order dated 22.1.97 passed in Civil Rule No.469 of 1995 which, as submitted by Mr. Sahu, is the base for filing this writ petition, it transpires that the learned Single Judge in his order dated 22.1.97 is very specific in also holding that the judicial review in such circumstance is not possible and the impugned Bulletin cannot be quashed by the Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. Further more, by simply giving the petitioners a liberty as to move the matter before the Apex Court or the Gauhati High Court said to have been so given by the Speaker vide his order dated 6.11.97 in my considered opinion, will also not improve the position and stand so taken by the petitioners when in previous civil rules, SLPs, writ appeals and review petitions so disposed of, the Courts have repeatedly held in connection with matter that once the petitioners have withdrawn their claims in Civil Rule No.3284 of 1995 and the Court had not given them the liberty as to press the same cause of action again, the judicial review in such circumstance, is not at all possible. While disposing of Misc Case No .911 of 1995 in Civil Rule No.3284 of 1995 on 11.8.95 this Court was specifically clear in refusing to pass any order by giving liberty to file fresh petition which was so withdrawn by the petitioners and the same was so dismissed as withdrawn. While disposing of Misc Case No .911 of 1995 in Civil Rule No.3284 of 1995 on 11.8.95 this Court was specifically clear in refusing to pass any order by giving liberty to file fresh petition which was so withdrawn by the petitioners and the same was so dismissed as withdrawn. The Apex Court, it further transpires, while dismissing the SLPs on 1.11.95 had clearly held that the order appearing in the Bulletin Part II was in consequence of the order passed by the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly and, therefore, the SLPs so preferred under Article 136 of the Constitution was not entertained and subsequent SLPNo.16719/96 along with Review Petition No.1616-19 also got dismissed by the Apex Court on 4.11.96 and 30.10.96 respectively. 11. Consequently, I find no merit in this writ petition so preferred by three of the disqualified MLAs and the grounds so taken are not tenable and they are nothing but the same grounds put in other way, the cause of action also being identical, the relief so sought for cannot by given. As prayed for, to stay the by-election of the constituencies, in that connection also no order can be passed, staying the election in the light of the provisions so contained under Article 329 (b) of the Constitution. In the result, this civil rule stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Civil Rule No. 45 of 1998 :12. In this civil rule also the matter involved broadly are the same as detailed while disposing of the Civil Rule No.54 of 1998 which need not be repeated. The learned counsel for the sole petitioner, Mr. In the result, this civil rule stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Civil Rule No. 45 of 1998 :12. In this civil rule also the matter involved broadly are the same as detailed while disposing of the Civil Rule No.54 of 1998 which need not be repeated. The learned counsel for the sole petitioner, Mr. L. Nanda Kumar, has also hammered on one point that since the decree is passed by the competent civil Court in his favour when the petitioner as plaintiff had challenged that the signature so relied upon by the Speaker said to have been of this petitioner prior to passing of his order dated 29.7.95 disqualifying him as MLA was declared to be forged and hence, in that light, the order of disqualification so passed would have been reviewed for which, when representation given after the passing of the decree in the civil suit, the Speaker vide his order dated 14.1.98 showing his inability as to review his order dated 29.7.95 as indicated in his order dated 14.1.98, gave the liberty to the petitioner to move this Court or the Apex Court on the point that the Courts have got powers to review such matters. Attention is drawn to the provisions of 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India,1950 particularly its para 7 which puts a bar of jurisdiction of Courts incorporating that no Courts shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of a Member of a House under this Schedule, but the Apex Court in a reported case AIR 1993 SC 412 in para 3, Kihotahollohon vs. Zachilhu, has held that para 7 of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution is unconstitutional meaning thereby that the judicial review is very much possible by the Courts even in the case of disqualification. It is further submitted by Sri Kumar that since the petitioner had made out a case of the fraud being played in forging his signature which was so upheld by the competent civil Court in civil suit, it further makes out good ground for such judicial review and support of his this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to one reported case (1996) 5 SCC 550 , at page 563, Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres India Ltd. 13. Dr. NK Singh, representing the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Dr. NK Singh, representing the respondent No. 1 and Mr. PC Deka, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent No.2 have adopted the same argument as advanced in Civil Rule No.54 of 1998, Mr. AK Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, has supported the disqualification order so passed by the Speaker dated 29.7.95 and has also submitted that in the back ground of good number of cases being preferred by the disqualified MLAs, all being dismissed, this civil rule has no leg to stand. 14. After hearing the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the counsel representing the respondents, I find that the decision so arrived at in a civil suit, as submitted, decreeing the suit in favour of the petitioner on 13.1.98, in no way will improve the case of the petitioner in the background of the claim of the petitioner in this matter being withdrawn in Civil Rule No.3284 of 1995 by filing Misc Petition No.911 of 1995 and while disposing of the same on 11.8.95, this Court had not given the liberty as to file any petition afresh in connection with this matter, that closes the door not to be reopened again for which one after the order right from 1995 attempts are being taken by the disqualified MLAs but in vain. That being the position, I do not feel hesitant at all in holding that this civil rule also has no leg to stand and is accordingly dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. 15. The miscellaneous petition so filed on behalf of the Speaker as pressed into service by Dr.NK Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, could not be considered because of the original orders in which the forgery was claimed, could not be produced by the learned counsel representing the Speaker on the concluding day of the argument of these two civil rules and the urgency so shown by the learned counsel for the petitioners as to fix the matter for Judgment after the conclusion of the argument because of the ensuing election at hand. That being the position, the miscellaneous petition lastly were not so entertained at this stage and in all fairness, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, the Speaker sought permission as to give respondent No.l the liberty as to scrutinise the same at his level which is so given. That being the position, the miscellaneous petition lastly were not so entertained at this stage and in all fairness, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, the Speaker sought permission as to give respondent No.l the liberty as to scrutinise the same at his level which is so given. This also disposes of the miscellaneous petitions so filed and separately numbered in connection with these civil rules.