VENKATESH BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) appeal admitted. Sri Advocate general waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent appeal taken on board and called out for hearing. An interesting argument about true ambit of articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution was ably presented in this appeal. Preferred to challenge the order dated January 3, 1995 passed by the learned single judge summarily dismissing the writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution. The petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto, restraining respondents 2 and 3 to hold the office of the chief minister and deputy chief minister respectively unless a fresh oath is administered by the governor.

(2.) the five years duration of ix Karnataka assembly was to expire on 17th december, 1994. The poll for electing members of the x Karnataka assembly was held and results were declared by 10th december, 1994. Respondents 2 and 3 were not members of the (ix assembly but were duly elected in the poll held in December 1994. The ruling party lost the majority in the poll results declared and the chief minister submitted resignation of his council of ministers and which was duly accepted by the governor. The party to which respondents 2 and 3 belong secured majority in the poll and the governor called upon respondents 2 and 3 to hold the posts of chief minister and deputy chief minister on 11th december, 1994. The governor administered oath of office to respondents 2 and 3. The election commission published a notification contemplated under Section 73 of representation of the People Act. 1951 in the government gazette on 14th december, 1994 and on such publication the assembly was deemed to have been duly constituted. The first meeting of the newly elected members of the x assembly was convened on 27th december. 1994. Respondents 2 and 3 have continued to hold their respective offices all along.

(3.) on these undisputed facts the petitioner approached this court and claimed that respondents 2 and 3 are not legally entitled to hold the office after the dissolution of the ix assembly unless the governor administers a fresh oath to these respondents. It was claimed that on the expiry of the term of the ix assembly the offices of chief minister and deputy chief minister automatically comes to an end and on Constitution of fresh assembly it was incumbent upon the governor to administer fresh oath to enable respondents 2 and 3 to continue in office. The petitioner claimed that unless the oath is administered by governor to respondents 2 and 3 in respect of the x assembly, respondents 2 and 3 are debarred from discharging the official functions. The relief sought by the petitioner was resisted by the respondents by claiming that the tenure of the office of chief minister does not depend upon the tenure of the assembly. It was claimed that it is open for the governor to appoint any person as the chief minister and such person even though not a member of any house is entitled to continue in office for a duration of six consecutive months and would cease to hold the office, in case he is not elected to any of the houses during that period. The respondents further claimed that as respondents 2 and 3 were duly elected as members of the x Karnataka assembly it was not necessary for the governor to administer fresh oath of office. The learned single judge found merit in the contention urged on behalf of the respondents and dismissed the writ petition and that has given rise to the filing of this appeal.