Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P. Radhakrishna vs Mr. Ram Naik And Ors. on 3 September, 2002
JUDGMENT Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed by an advocate of this Court as party-in-person praying this Court to issue a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Quo-Warranto restraining the first respondent from functioning as Union Minister for Petroleum, Government of India, in the interests of justice and seeks such other orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The three respondents in the writ petition are (1) Mr. Ram Naik, Petroleum Minister, Ministry of Petroleum, Union of India, New Delhi, (2) Ministry of Petroleum, Union of India, New Delhi, represented by its Secretary; and (3) Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, New Delhi.
3. When this Writ Petition is presented in the Registry, office had taken several objections as to the maintainability of this writ petition including maintainability against the third respondent-Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. At the instance of the petitioner/party-in-person, the matter is placed before us on 19-8-2002 under the caption "for orders of the Court" for hearing the party-in-person on the objections raised by the Registry. On 19-8-2002, we granted time to the party-in-person desiring to hear on the objections raised by the Registry. Sri C.V. Ramulu, learned senior Central Government Standing Counsel took notice on behalf of the second and third respondents. We have also informed the petitioner/party-in-person our desire to hear the writ petition on merits at the stage of hearing the objections raised by the Registry and directed the matter to be posted on 21-8-2002. The matter was finally heard on 26-8-2002 and reserved for judgment on that day.
4. From the gist of pleadings, the grounds on which the petitioner/party-in-person seeks a writ of Quo-Warranto against the first respondent are that the first respondent after having been appointed as Union Minister for Petroleum, during his tenure as Petroleum Minister has granted allotments of Petrol pumps and Gas agencies on various considerations. On 1-8-2002 the Chief Whip of the Congress Party in the Lok Sabha, Sri Priyaranjan Das Munshi has brought to the notice of the Lok Sabha about the scam which took place in the allotments of Petrol Pumps and Gas agencies by the Dealership Selection Boards headed by the first respondent as the Chairman and the turn of events thereafter which includes the third respondent canceling the allotment of Petrol Pumps and Gas Agencies made since 1-1-2000 by an order dated 6-8-2002. Thus, according to the party-in-person the first respondent has acquired disqualification to continue as a Cabinet Minister in the Central Cabinet. It is also pleaded that the first respondent has committed breach of oath taken by him. Under these circumstances, petitioner/party-in-person seeks a Writ of Quo-Warranto against the first respondent, as indicated above.
5. On behalf of respondents 2 and 3, Sri C.V. Ramulu, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel primarily contended that initially there was no disqualification for the first respondent to be appointed as a Union Cabinet Minister and subsequently also he has not acquired any disqualification which disentitles him from continuing as a Cabinet Minister in the Union Cabinet. It is contended that a Writ of Quo-Warranto does not lie against the first respondent inasmuch as the scope and enquiry under the Quo-Warranto proceedings are not exhaustive and since no substantive material is placed by the party-in-person in support of his contentions, this Writ Petition has to be dismissed.
6. In order to seek a Writ of Quo-Warranto, it must be shown by the petitioner that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority. In other words, Quo-Warranto proceedings affords judicial enquiry in which any person holding independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty is called upon to show by what authority or right he holds the said office or franchise or liberty and if the enquiry leads to finding that the holder of the office has no authority to continue, a Writ of Quo-Warranto shall issue for ousting him from that office.
7. Disqualification is of two types viz., initial disqualification and subsequent disqualification which is acquired while holding an office. Initial disqualification would mean a person not legally entitled to hold a public office even in the first instance. The subsequent disqualification could be either by an indictment by a competent Court of law or under any Act or such other act committed by the holder of such post which disentitles him from holding such post.
8. In the light of the above guiding factors, let us refer to the facts of the instant case. The main allegations made against the first respondent are that as a Petroleum Minister in the Union Cabinet, he has favoured several persons and granted allotments of Petrol Pumps and Gas Agencies in his capacity as Chairman of Dealership Selection Boards and the third respondent having prima-facie come to know that several malpractices have taken place in such allotments, has cancelled those allotments by an order dated 6-8-2002 with effect from 1-1-2000. Petitioner/Party-in-person pleaded that though there is no initial disqualification for the first respondent to be appointed as Union Cabinet Minister, but has committed breach of Oath taken by him as he has shown favoritism in allotment of Petrol Pumps and Gas Agencies to his own partymen, and therefore, the first respondent has forfeited the right to continue in office. According to the party-in-person, when the third respondent himself has cancelled all the allotments of Petrol Pumps and Gas Agencies made by the first respondent by an order dated 6-8-2002, that itself is a prima-facie proof that the first respondent has acted illegally and malafidely. Thus, party-in-person contended that by his acts and misdeeds the first respondent has acquired subsequent disqualification and as such not entitled to function as Cabinet Minister and therefore, seeks a writ of Quo-Warranto against the first respondent.
9. On a hearing of the Party-in-person and also the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, the point for consideration is whether this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would make an enquiry against the first respondent who is a Union Cabinet Minister and issue a Writ of Quo-Warranto against him?
10. A Full Bench of this Court in DHRONAMRAJU SATYANARAYANA Vs. N.T. RAMA RAO AND OTHERS, while considering the question whether on account of various allegations made against duly elected Chief Minister of State, a Writ of Quo Warranto declaring that the Chief Minister has forfeited his right to continue in office on various grounds, could be issued, at para-9 of the said decision, held thus :
"Respect for the limits of functional division being the essence of democracy, the Courts would not, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, encroach upon the sphere exclusively preserved for the Governor under the Constitution. The question is : Is there any authority for this Court to hold that the charges, if found true, would render the Chief Minister permanently disqualified ?If this Court has no such power, in terms of the "Constitution or any other law, it would be futile for us to pass an order which could be defeated by the Governor passing another order appointing him to the office again. So far as the Ministers including the Chief Minister are concerned, the appointing authority is the Governor. Under the Constitution, the power to terminate the tenure of office of the Ministers also is vested in the Governor, not in any other authority. To the growth and development of our modern jurisprudence, judicial activism has a vital role to play, but it has its limits and limitations also. If the Court assumes for itself limitlessness of jurisdiction, it might lead to a state of functional anarchy, which has to be avoided in the larger public interest itself."
11. The first respondent is a Union Cabinet Minister for Petroleum who was appointed by the President of India on the basis of the recommendations of the Prime Minister. The appointment of Prime Minister and Central Ministers of Union Cabinet is governed by Article 75 of the Constitution of India. Article 75 (1) of the Constitution of India provides that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. Article 75 (2) further provides that a minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. Therefore, it is clear from the provisions under Article 75 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India, the appointment and removal of Union Ministers shall vest in the President of India.
12. The field of public interest, at times tend to reach areas which are already covered. Constitutional Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a given case, positively view the matter that the Courts have to come to the rescue and set at naught the mischief sought to be done, in the interest of public at large. In other words, it could be said, insofar as the matters involving public interest are concerned, Courts are inclined to show a definite desire to give their vent which may be termed as "judicial activism". Court showing eagerness in solving a problem, even if it is said that there is an element of judicial activism, such activism need not deter the Courts to decide an issue where larger public interest is involved when such decision would be in the larger interest of the society. However, there are boundaries drawn and the Court in the guise of deciding a case involving public interest cannot stretch its hands beyond permissible limits. It could be said, if the Court assumes limitless jurisdiction for itself, it might lead to a State of functional anarchy, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra.
13. The first respondent is a Union Minister for Petroleum. As indicated, his appointment as Minister and removal are governed under Article 75(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. The effort made by the petitioner/party-in-person before this Court is one for making an appropriate enquiry as to whether the first respondent has acquired disqualification on the basis of the pleadings and material placed before this Court and thereafter issuance of a Writ of Quo-Warranto restraining the first respondent from functioning as Union Minister for Petroleum, Government of India. Under the Constitution, as the power to appoint and terminate the tenure of a Union Minister solely vest with the President of India, it would be inappropriate for this Court, while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to encroach upon the sphere which exclusively falls within the domain of the President of India. We, therefore, decline to go into the allegations made by the petitioner/party-in-person and cannot grant such a relief.
14. Though several submissions are urged by the petitioner/party-in-person contending that on the basis of the material available, the third respondent cancelled the allotment of Petrol Pumps and Gas Agencies made by the first respondent as Chairman of the Dealearship Selection Boards, which itself is sufficient to hold that the first respondent has acted in a malafide manner thus acquiring disqualification, in view of our discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are not persuaded to agree with the submissions of the party-in-person since we have shown our disinclination, while stating reasons.
15. In the light of the above discussion, we dismiss this Writ Petition at SR stage itself. Since we have dismissed the Writ Petition at the threshold, the enquiry as to whether the third respondent is a necessary party or not to this Writ Petition need not be made by us as it would only be an exercise in futility.