The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'office of profit' and the requirement for evidence of pecuniary gain to determine disqualification under the Constitution.

( 1 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the writ petition are :the petitioner was elected as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Basavanagudi Constituency, Bangalore City on 27th Nov. 1989. He was offered the post of Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission in the rank of Cabinet Minister. Since he was aware that acceptance of an 'office of profit' under the Government of India would be a disqualification for being a Member of the Legislative Assembly, he was not inclined to accept the offer. Accordingly, he conveyed his views to Government of India. When consulted the Law Ministry advised the Government of India that in view of the provisions of Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956 (for short the 'act') there would be no bar on the petitioner holding the post of the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission and to continue as Member in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly so long as he does not receive any remuneration other than the compensatory allowance for holding the post of Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission. Thereafter, the petitioner accepted the post of the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission. In the order of appointment of the petitioner to the said post, it is specifically stated that the petitioner would not draw any salary, he would be entitled only to the travelling allowance/daily allowance, conveyance allowance or a chauffer-driven car and house rent allowance or rent free furnished accommodation including free supply of electricity and water. Having accepted the said appointment on the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order Annexure A, the petitioner held the said post till 6-7-1990, on which date he tendered his resignation to the post of Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission. In the meanwhile, he continued as a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

( 2 ) THE third respondent filed a petition dated 30-12-1989 under Art. 192 of the Constitution of India to His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka contending that the post of Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission has the status of a Cabinet Minister of Union of India; the incumbent of the said post is entitled to receive all benefits of a Cabinet Minister; therefore the aid office was capable of yielding the pecuniary gain and it is an office of profit attracting Art. 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India; hence action is to be taken as the petitioner has incurred disqualification under the said Article. The Governor of Karnataka referred the complaint of the third respondent under Art. 192 (2) of the Constitution to the second respondent-Chief Election Commission to obtain opinion on the question as to disqualification of the petitioner. The petitioner received a notice from the second respondent to answer the complaint. He replied to the said notice raising various objections. He has specifically stated in the reply that so long as the incumbent of the office of the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission did not draw any salary other than the compensatory allowance he will not incur disqualification under Art. 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution. He has specifically stated that as per the terms of the appointment order-Annexure-A he could draw no salary; therefore there was no question of the petitioner holding office of profit and that the petitioner as a matter of fact also did not draw any salary. It was further pointed out that in view of the provisions of the Act the office held by the petitioner as Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission on the terms mentioned did not attract disqualification under Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

( 3 ) SINCE the second respondent did not proceed with the complaint for some time the third respondent filed W. P. No. 17666/90 before this court seeking a writ of mandamus to the second respondent to furnish its opinion. In the said writ petition the petitioner was the second respondent. The learned singl