Madras High Court
K. Krishnamurthi vs The Govt. Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 18 February, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR1989MAD102, AIR 1989 MADRAS 102, (1988) WRITLR 62
ORDER Mohan, J.
1. The petitioner was an erstwhile member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elected from Kumbakonam Constituency. The petitioner participated in the Tamil Nadu Assembly proceedings held on 28-1-1988.
2. The third respondent Commissioner of Police, had given a statement, which had come to be published in all Englishand Tamil dailies. He was instructed by the fourth respondent, Speaker of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, to move in with necessary police force to disperse the unruly elements and restore peace in the Tamil Nadu Assembly precincts on that day, viz., 28th Jan- 1988. The third respondent reiterated that there was a specific order from the fourth respondent to him. He and the police force entered into the Assembly only on orders from the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
Thus, the third respondent has committed an act, which is unconstitutional and the same is justified by him. In fact, the third respondent had committed a crime without any jurisdiction in gross violation of the procedure established by law as contemplated under Article 21.
The third respondent is an executive. He had failed to perform his fundamental duties and acted beyond his executive powers. In fact, he had taken the law into his own hands by saying that he was not one to be believed in going behind men to restore order in a place hit by riot.
The third respondent's dictatorial attitude was indicated in his statement from the following line -- ' I am not worthy of wearing the uniform if I do not perform my job in a situation like the one witnessed in the Assembly on 28th January 1988, especially when I happened to be in the vicinity.' The Constitution of India has clearly demarcated the functions of Executive, Judiciary and the Legislature. The third respondent has acted as a subordinate to the fourth respondent forgetting the fact that he is an executive under the State and not an employee of the fourth respondent.
The third respondent is to function as per the orders given by the Slate and the executive actions performed by him are to be only on the instructions of the State and for any violation of any action to be construed as an illegal act of the State. The statement issued by the third respondent makes it crystal clear that he has not acted in pursuance of the directions or formal orders or any other instrument from the first and second respondents.
Rule 123 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules does not enable the Speaker to claim such powers It only empowers him to adjourn the house to the next sitting in case of grave disorder. The third respondent ought not to have responded to the illegal instruction without authority. Thus, the third respondent had violated the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules by obliging the fourth respondent when he is not empowered to do so. In fact, the doors of the Legislative Assembly were closed and there was a free violation with the aid of the third respondent. Even assuming for a moment that the fourth respondent has got a right to seek police assistance, it can only be channelised through the Government agents viz. first and second respondents since the Assembly precincts do not form part and parcel of the domain of the City Police Commissioner, the third respondent herein.
The third respondent thus has violated Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The personal liberty was curtailed and the third respondent has disregarded the sanctity of life without observing the procedure established by law.
The Tamil Nadu Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions framed under Article 166(2) and (3) of the Constitution clearly postulate not an oral order, but a written order.
On these allegations, a writ of quo warranto is prayed for against the third respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates these contentions raised in the affidavit and contends that the third respondent had acted illegally and in violation of Article 166 of the Constitution, as a result of which action, Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated. Where therefore there is a violation of the provisions of the Constitution, then a writ of quo warranto could be issued. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on Pioneer Motors Ltd v. O. M. A. Majeed .
4. I am afraid, the writ petition is misconceived As a matter of fact, within the Assembly, it is the Speaker who controls the proceedings. Without going into the correctness of the version in relation to the events that had happened on 28th Jan. 1988, if the fourth respondent had requested the third respondent to provide police protection, certainly it is the duty of the third respondent to comply with that request, because, primarily he is in charge of law and order. There is no question of Article 166(3) being violated. That Article merely postulates the framing of rules for the convenient transaction of the business of the Government and for the allocation of the said business among the members of the cabinet. It was that which came to be dealt with in Pioneer Motors Ltd. v. O.M.A. Majeed . That has absolutely no application to an Assembly, nor does that Article in any way control the proceedings of the Assembly.
There is hardly any scope for the petitioner to contend that there is a violation of Article 21, viz., the procedure established by law. To quell a riot and restore order, the Commissioner may act in the manner best known to him as the circumstances may demand and there is no question of any written order from the Speaker to act. Circumstances may vary and depending upon the gravity of such circumstances, it is for the Commissioner to act.
5. Even assuming every thing in favour of the petitioner, how does a writ of quo warranto lie? How does the Commissioner render himself ineligible to hold the post? Certainty not by excessive acting. Therefore, 1 have no hesitation to dismiss the writ petition in limine, which is accordingly dismissed.