T ASAFALI Vs. E K NAYANAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General at length.

(2.) The prayer in this Original Petition is for a declaration that the first respondent - Chief Minister having violated the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala representing the Thalassery Constituency is no longer qualified or eligible to represent the said Constituency, declare that the first respondent having violated the oath of office and secrecy as Chief Minister of the State of Kerala, he is liable to demit the office of Chief Minister forthwith, for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P1 press release and for other incidental reliefs. As per Ext. P1 press release, it is stated that the 2nd respondent has been appointed the representative of the Chief Minister in Thalassery Constituency. The contention advanced is that the Chief Minister being a constitutional functionary, the duties, responsibilities, powers and privileges of the Chief Minister cannot be delegated to another person. Considering the multitudinous functions which a Chief Minister is called upon to discharge, I do not think that this submission has any legs to stand. No doubt, it is true that the Chief Minister cannot abdicate his essential constitutional functions to his chosen delegate (s). Perforce, such functions will have to be discharged by him personally and not through his surrogates. Going by Ext. P1, what has been done is that the 2nd respondent has been appointed as the representative of the Chief Minister in Thalassery Constituency. For the reason already stated, I do not think that there is anything illegal in it especially when it is remembered that the Chief Minister cannot personally attend to all the matters in his constituency. Certainly this calls for somebody to act as his nominee. This position finds statutory recognition in S.54(8) of the Kerala Municipality Act which reads as follows:

(3.) As regards the prayer for declaration sought, it has to be remembered that the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Therefore, it may not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction for this Court to grant the relief as prayed. I do not find any abdication of essential constitutional function on the part of the first respondent se as to catalyse this Court to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is an integral part of the functioning of the high constitutional office like that of the Chief Minister to delegate certain functions to others since it may be practically impossible to bestow his personal attention on each and every matter in his constituency. One will have to reconcile with such delegation while holding high public office. Certainly, some amount of play in the joints will have to be conceded to the constitutional functionary while discharging his functions. His conduct in that regard is therefore not liable to be called in question before this Court. It might be a matter for the Legislature and the electorate and certainly not for the courts to give a direction in that behalf. Considering the casual way the relief of great moment is sought viz; to demit the office of Chief Minister based on a flimsy cause of action, I am of the opinion that this petition is an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, I dismiss this petition with costs to the first respondent quantified at Rs. 1,500/-.