Varghese Kalliath, J.

1. A learned Single Judge of this court has referred O.P. No. 3996 of 1992. O.P. No. 5078 of 1992 was directed to be posted along with O.P. No. 3996/92 by the same learned Judge. The facts and reliefs claimed in both the Original Petitions are identical; but petitioners are different. The same council appeared for the petitioners in the two original petitions. In fact, learned counsel did not advance any specific argument in O.P. No. 5078 of 1992. Learned counsel only argued O.P. No. 3996/92. All the references in this judgment will be only from O. P. No. 3996/92 unless specifically mentioned, for the obvious reason that O. P. No. 5078/92 has not been argued. It so done since the result of O.P. No. 3996/92 will dispose of O. P. No. 5078/92.

2. The learned Single Judge referred O.P.No. 3996/92 observing that a contention was raised by the Addl. Advocate General who appeared before the learned Single Judge for respondents 2 and 4 and Central Government Standing Counsel who appeared for the third respondent that this court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto in relation to the office held by the first respondent - a member of the Indian A