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-warranlo 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 cancelling 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, tills 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document