VIRENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein Shri Virendra Pandey seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto against respondent No.2 Shri Narayan Singh questioning his appointment and for his consequent removal from the post of Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission.

(2.) The above-stated challenge has been made by the petitioner in the following factual matrix of the case: -

(3.) The petitioner claiming to be a social worker of substantial repute and crusader against political and administrative corruption in every walk of life, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto stating inter alia that selection and appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short the 'CSERC') is in violation of the provisions contained in the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the 'Act of 2003'). It has been pleaded by the petitioner that the State Government in order to select and appoint respondent No.2 on the post of Chairman, CSERC, altered the prescribed statutory eligibility qualification for the post of Chairperson of the CSERC and surreptitiously excluded the qualification relating to Engineering and Management provided in Section 84 (1) of the Act of 2003 and clandestinely inserted Administration and Accountancy as qualification and also the required graduate degree for the said post which excluded many eligible candidates having eligibility qualification in the field of Engineering and Management and which gave way to the selection committee to appoint respondent No.2 who is a person belonging to Administration and thereby, the appointment of respondent No.2 on the said post is in violation of sub-section (1) of Section 84 of the Act of 2003. It has further been pleaded that criminal case was registered and was pending against respondent No.2 and he is a person of doubtful integrity and therefore, he ought not to have been appointed on the said post and appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Chairman of CSERC is legally unsustainable and is in violation of statutory provisions. It has also been pleaded that respondent No.2 is not a person of ability, integrity and standing who has adequate knowledge of, and have shown capacity in, dealing with problems relating to engineering, finance, commerce, economics, law or management. Therefore, his selection and appointment deserve to be quashed being contrary to statutory provisions by issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto.