HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. C. MISRA
MAHABIR PRASAD SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
PRAFULLA CHANDRA GHOSE - Respondent
, , Of ,
Decided On : February 6, 1968
WRIT - Quo warranto - Appointment of Chief Minister and other Ministers - Pleasure of the Governor - Scope and extent - Governor's power to appoint Chief Minister - Whether conditioned by any restriction created by the Constitution - Interpretation of Articles 163(2) and 164(1) of the Constitution - Validity of the appointment of Chief Minister and other Ministers - Whether can be questioned in writ proceedings - Governor's order removing the Ministry - Whether beyond the scope of the application - Governor's power to withdraw the pleasure during which the Ministers hold office - Whether absolute and unrestricted - Governor's right to appoint Chief Minister - Whether must act in his own discretion - Charge of mala fide - Whether can be sustained - Prima facie case - Whether made out - Arguable issues - Whether raised.
Fact of the Case:
The Governor of West Bengal, acting in his discretion, dismissed the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers and appointed a new Chief Minister and other Ministers. The petitioner, a member of the Legislative Assembly, filed an application for a rule nisi in a petition for a writ of quo warranto, challenging the validity of the appointment of the new Chief Minister and other Ministers. The petitioner contended that the Governor's power to appoint the Chief Minister was conditioned by the advice of the Council of Ministers, and that the Governor could not dismiss the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers in his own discretion. The petitioner also alleged that the Governor's order was mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Governor's power to appoint the Chief Minister and other Ministers under Article 164(1) of the Constitution was not conditioned by any restriction created by the Constitution. The court further held that the Governor's power to withdraw the pleasure during which the Ministers hold office was absolute and unrestricted, and that the Governor's right to appoint the Chief Minister must be exercised in his own discretion. The court also held that the Governor's order removing the Ministry was beyond the scope of the application, and that the petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case or raise any arguable issues. The court, therefore, rejected the application for a rule nisi.
Issues: 1. Whether the Governor's power to appoint the Chief Minister was conditioned by the advice of the Council of Ministers? 2. Whether the Governor could dismiss the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers in his own discretion? 3. Whether the Governor's order was mala fide? 4. Whether the petitioner had made out a prima facie case or raised any arguable issues?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Governor's power to appoint the Chief Minister and other Ministers under Article 164(1) of the Constitution was not conditioned by any restriction created by the Constitution. 2. The Governor's power to withdraw the pleasure during which the Ministers hold office was absolute and unrestricted. 3. The Governor's right to appoint the Chief Minister must be exercised in his own discretion.
Final Decision: The application for a rule nisi was rejected.
( 1 ) THIS is an application for a rule nisi in a petition for a writ of quo warranto. The petition was moved on January 12, 1968 when an order was made directing the petitioner to serve notice of this application on the respondents. Pursuant to this order notice has been served upon the respondents who have appeared in this application, but some of them opposed and issue of a rule nisi, while others supported the petitioner.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the events that have led to this application are as follows:after the last General Election several political parties, whose members are members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council of West Bengal, formed a coalition under the name and style of 'united Front'. The members of the United Front in the Legislative Assembly, enjoyed the support of the majority, and the Governor appointed the respondent No. 12, who was the leader of the United Front, as the Chief Minister of the State, and on the recommendation of the Chief Minister, the Governor appointed the respondent No. 1 and the respondents Nos. 13 to 29 as the other Ministers. On or about November 1, 1967, the respondent No. 1 resigned the office of a Minister, and this resignation was accepted by the Governor with effect from November 6, 1967. On the same day, namely, November 6, 1967, the respondent No. 1, with some other members of the Legislative Assembly, claimed that the United Front had ceased to command the support of the majority of the members of the Assembly, and therefore, its leaders in the Legislative Assembly had no right to function as Council of Ministers of the State. On the same day the Governor requested the Council of Ministers, headed by the respondent No. 12, to call the Legislative Assembly into session as early as possible, and not later than the third week of November, 1967, on the ground that doubts and been raised about the support of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly to the United front Ministry. On or about November 14, 1967, the Governor requested the respondent No. 12 to call the Legislative Assembly into session on November 23, 1967. The Council of Ministers, however, declined to accede to the Governor's request, as it had decided to call the Legislative Assembly into session on December 18, 1967. On or about November 16, 1967 the Governor again requested the Council of Ministers to agree to the Legislative Assembly being summoned not later than November 30, 1967. The Council of Ministers, however, informed the Governor that the session of the Legislative Assembly could not be called before December 18, 1967. On November 21, 1967, the Governor made an order that the respondent No. 12 should cease to hold the office of the Chief Minister of the State with immediate effect and also that the Council of Ministers headed by him stood dissolved and the other Ministers should cease to hold office. This order was followed by another order of the same day whereby the Governor appointed the respondent No. 1 to be the Chief Minister of the State and on the advice of the Chief Minister, he appointed the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to be members of the Council of Ministers. These two orders made by the Governor on November 21, 1967 are the subject-matter of this application for a rule nisi.
( 3 ) THE first point urged by Mr. Nirmal Chandra Sen for the petitioner was that the Governor appointing a Chief Minister and other Ministers, in exercise of his powers under Article 164 (1) of the Constitution could not act in his own discretion, and that he was bound to act in accordance with the advice of the Chief Minister. It was further argued that the Governor, acting in his discretion had no power to dismiss a Chief Minister or a Council of Ministers. Mr. Sen referred to the Notification No. 3777-A. R. dated November 21, 1967, published in the Calcutta Gazette of the same date, whereby in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 164 of the Constitution, the
REFERRED TO : Rai Sahib Ramjawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab
Himanshu Kumar Bose v. Jyotiprokash Mitter
Jyoti Prokash Mitter v. Mr.Justice H.K.Bose
British India Corpn. Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Punjab
University of Mysore v. C.D.Govind Rao
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.