A petitioner must have standing in order to bring a writ petition. Standing requires that the petitioner show that he or she is personally aggrieved by the actions of the respondent.

ORDER :- This writ petition is for Mandamus seeking directions to restrain the first respondent (State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St. George, Madras) from permitting the second respondent, Thiru M.G. Ramachandran, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from acting in films or engaging himself in any profession, art, calling or employment while he continues to be the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

2. The petitioner is a citizen of India and a voter. The second respondent was appointed Chief Minister by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in June 1977. For some weeks now the second respondent has been stating that he was going to engage himself in film acting. Various statements in different forms have been appearing in the newspapers. A news appearing in the daily 'Sunday Standard' a copy of which is annexed to the affidavit to indicate that he has definitely intended to engage in film acting while continuing to be the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner in his affidavit, after tracing that in this country a cabinet form of Parliamentary Government on the British model has come to be established, also refers to certain provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly, Articles 163 and 164 and states on advice that the Minister-ship is a full time salaried public office. It is further stated by him that as such the Minister must give his full time to the service of the State as Minister and it is illegal and violation of the Constitution for a Minister to engage in any profession, avocation, trade or calling while continuing to be a Minister.

3. The Chief Minister was appointed by the Governor of Tamil Nadu and it is well known that the executive power is vested in the Governor who is aided and advised by the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head. On the advice of the Chief Minister, the other Ministers are appointed.

4. Every citizen of India is interested in the governance of the country and of the State by an executive which does not itself tratrsgress the Constitution and violate the provisions of the Constitution, with respect to the powers and duties of a Minister. The grave public danger of a transgression of the Constitution by the very persons who are the custodians of the Constitution would take place if one Minister who is a holder of a full time salaried public office is allowed to act. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is just and necessary that this court may decide whether or not in terms of Arts.154, 163 and 164 of the Constitution in the light of the British Parliamentary Cabinet system, the office of the Chief Minister is a full time salaried office. If this court holds that it is a full time salaried office the petitioner is entitled to pray this court to grant an injunction restraining the first respondent for the above stated relief. It is with these averments in the affidavit the above relief is prayed for.

5. Mr. V.K. Thiruvenkatachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, states as under -

(i) This Court has the power to interpret the Constitution;

(ii) In 1942-1-All Eng. Rep. 378, it is stated -

"This is the King's court. We sit here to administer justice, and to interpret the laws of the rules in the King's name. It is respectful and proper to assume that once the law is declared by a competent judicial authority, it will be followed by the Crown".

(iii) It is further submitted by the learned counsel that important issues or matters required to be decided in this case relating to the prominent position of a Chief Minister, is a holder of a public office, a full time salaried office. If that question is a question of general public importance, it may be asked as to who could move the court for the determination of that question. It would be three kinds of persons who could move the court -

(i) any citizen of India;

(ii) only a person whose business/profession is injuriously affected by the entry of another into it;

(iii) none at all.

The submiss