SREENIVASAN VENUGOPALAN Vs. JUSTICE M M PAREED PILLAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This public interest litigation is filed by the State Secretary of AIADMK, Kerala Unit, seeking for the following reliefs --

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The first respondent is a former Judge and Chief Justice of High Court of Kerala. After retirement, he was holding the position of Chairperson of Kerala Human Rights Commission and after demitting the office, on 31/01/2009 he was administered the oath of office as Lok Ayukta of the State. It is not disputed that, as per the definition of S.3 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, the first respondent as retired Chief Justice is fully qualified to be appointed as Lok Ayukta. But, what is contended is that, as the first respondent was holding the post of Chairperson of the State Human Rights Commission, as per S.24(3), he is ineligible for further employment under the Government of a State or under the Government of India. According to the writ petitioner, since the first respondent was holding the post of Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, he is disqualified or ineligible to hold any further post like Lok Ayukta under the Government of State of Kerala.

(3.) In this regard, several decisions have been cited. As held by Apex Court in several pronouncements, the writ of quo warranto lies only against the person, who is not entitled to hold the office of public nature and is an usurper of the office. Broadly speaking, the writ of quo warranto proceedings affords a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the office.