(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the second respondent relating to the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 bearing Ref.No.U-11018/1/2017-UTL and the third respondent relating to the impugned order dated 16.06.2017 bearing Ref: U-11018/2017-UTL and quash the same in as much as they vest powers on the fourth respondent in violation of the Rules of Business of the Government of Puducherry, 1963 and law.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned communications dated 27.01.2017 and 16.06.2017, which are clarifications issued by the Government of India in respect of the constitutional position relating to the Union Territory of Puducherry.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:

(a) It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the petitioner is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister of Puducherry directly in-charge of the Centre-State relationship between the Union Territory and the Government of India. The petitioner belonging to Indian National Congress Party is the elected member of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly for the Raj Bhavan Constituency. There are political differences between the elected Government of Puducherry and the Central Government. Even though the Union Territory of Puducherry has to be governed as per law within the four corners of the constitutional provisions, the fourth respondent, viz., Administrator of Puducherry, believes in her individual wish and will over the collective responsibility and wisdom of the Council of Ministers and wants to impose, substitute and perpetrate her ideas, thoughts and decisions on the Union Territory, which she does in the name of

(i). Review Meeting with the officials directly by-passing the elected Government;

(ii). Calling for each and every file even before they are officially circulated to her in accordance with the rules and hierarchy;

(iii) Inspection and visits and issuing 'on the spot' orders and thereby running a parallel and diametrically opposite Government within the Government.

(b). The petitioner has quoted many instances in respect of interference in the administration by the fourth respondent, two of which are detailed as under:

(i). The Government of India as well as the Government of Puducherry believe that the Government officers should use only the official websites and channels for their inter-communication, execution and reporting of the work. The Government of India has issued an Office Memorandum barring officials from using social media and unconnected internet mediums for official work and the Chief Minister of Puducherry has issued directions to comply with the same. But the fourth respondent herein has imposed her sole view that everybody should be on social media round the clock and has formed working groups through social media and issues directions directing the officers to report only through social media. This according to the petitioner, is in violation of the oath of secrecy.

(ii). Another instance is that when there are set of rules for sanctioning payments and disbursements, the fourth respondent instructed the Commissioner of Oulgaret Municipality to pay a sum of Rs.2 Crores without complying with the norms and the procedure of obtaining sanction from the competent authorities, thus indicating that she is the authority with whom the power vests. (c) It is stated that the fourth respondent is interfering with the day-to-day administration of the Government of Puducherry, policies and its programmes, thus interfering in the every functioning of the elected Government and running the Government herself by calling for every file, officers at random and issuing directions to run the administration in her own way. This, according to the petitioner, openly declares that the entire elected Government, legislature and executive are all