KARNATAKA VALMEEKI NAYAKA MAHASABHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed in the public interest to consider the representation vide Annexure-A dated 15.10.2009 in accordance with law and for a direction to remove the second respondent from the post of Minister, who has allegedly failed in his duty to safeguard the welfare of the persons belonging to schedule caste and schedule tribes in Karnataka State. Certain other allegations are also made against the second respondent in the writ petition.

(2.) The relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. A Minister is appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister under Article 164 of the Constitution of India. The Ministers shall hold the office during the pleasure of the Governor. The wordings in the Article 164 are clear answers to the petitioner's prayer in the writ petition.

(3.) Article 164(1) of the Constitution of India clearly provides that the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Exercise of this pleasure has not been fettered by any condition or constriction or restriction. The Governor has wide and large powers in these matters. Withdrawal of pleasure is entirely in the discretion of the Governor and the Governor alone. Article 164(2) of the Constitution of India provides that the Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Assembly. The same does not in any way fetter or constrict the power of the Governor to withdraw the pleasure while the Ministers hold office. The repository of power to appoint Ministers or draw the pleasure contemplated under Article 164(1) of the Constitution of India, are exclusive pleasure-cum-discretion of the Governor.