Antony Dominic, J.

1. In this writ petition filed in public interest, the petitioner invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondents 3 to 6 stating that they are the Ministers in the State Cabinet, who have taken oath in terms of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the Chief Minister had convened a Cabinet meeting at 8 a.m. on 15/11/2017, and the Cabinet had taken several important policy decisions, it is alleged that the aforesaid respondents abstained/boycotted from the Cabinet due to political reasons. It is alleged that the third respondent had also handed over a letter to the Chief Minister stating that their party had decided to abstain from the meeting of the Cabinet. Exhibit P1, a news report that appeared in the Hindu daily dated 16/11/2017 is produced in support of the aforesaid averments. The petitioner states that the aforesaid alleged act of abstinence/boycotting amounts to breach of oath of office taken by respondents 3 to 6, entitling him to seek the following relief’s from this Court:

"(i). To declare that respondents 3 to 6 by collectively abstaining themselves on the orders of their party boss and extra constitutional authority from the Cabinet meeting held on the 15th of November, 2017 have committed brazen breach of the oath sworn to by them at the time of appointment as ministers and rendered themselves liable to be proceeded with for breach of oath.

(ii) To issue a Writ of Quo warranto calling upon respondents 3 to 6 under what authority of law they are continuing to hold the position of ministers in the Kerala Cabinet in view of the admitted breach of oath committed by them in collectively abstaining from the meeting on the 15th of November, 2017.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to immediately take such actions as are required under the provisions of the Constitution of India for commission of the breach of oath by respondents 3 to 6, forthwith, in public interest and uphold the Constitution of India.

(iv) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. On this petition, we heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri K.Ramakumar. According to Shri. K.Ramakumar, this is a case where breach of oath of office is admitted and in such a situation the petitioner is entitled to reliefs sought for. In support of his plea, the learned counsel referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in B.R.Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another [(2001) 7 SCC 231] and Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha and others [(2010) 6 SCC 113] and of the Full Bench of this Court in K.C.Chandy v. R.Balakrishna Pillai [1985 KLT 762].

3. We have considered the submissions made by him. In sum and substance, the case of the petitioner is that by abstaining/boycotting the Cabinet meeting of 15/11/2017 at the dictates of their political leaders, respondents 3 to 6 have violated the oath of office, by which they have sworn to act without fear, favour, affection or ill-will. To our mind, in this factual background, the first question to be considered is whether a writ petition filed with a prayer for writ of quo warranto can be entertained at all.

4. Insofar as this basic question is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra and is entirely covered by the full bench judgment of this Court in K.C.Chandy's case (supra). In the Full Bench judgment, the two questions that were considered by this Court were whether the breach of oath committed by a Minister would be a constitutional impediment for his continuance in his office and whether in such circumstances a writ of quo warranto or an information in the nature of quo warranto could be issued from this Court. These questions were considered by this Court and answered thus:

"2. The main questions that fall for decision in this writ petition are: (1) whether