RAJU PUZHANKARA Vs. KODIYERI BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed for issuing a writ of quo warranto to declare that the State Home Minister has no authority to continue in office. It is the averment that the Home Minister on 21.1.2009 in a public meeting at Thiruvananthapuram has disclosed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) has requested the Government of Kerala to grant sanction to prosecute Shri Pinarayi Vijayan, an ex-Minister in SNV Lavlin case and thus he has committed breach of trust and revealed official secret. It is further alleged that he has violated the solemn oath he has taken under 3rd Schedule of the Constitution of India and there is serious impropriety in his act and violation of the constitutional provisions.

(2.) A writ of quo warranto poses a question to the holder or occupier of a public office that what is your warrant of appointment by which you are holding the office. If the answer is not satisfactory, the usurper can be ousted by issuance of a writ of quo warranto. In other words, the usurper of a public office is asked by what authority or warrant he is in such office. Quo warranto is a remedy or a procedure whereby the legality of the claim by a person asserts to an office or franchise is looked into and oust such persons from the enjoyment of public office if he has no authority to hold such office. Ingredients necessary for the quo warranto writ was considered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in University of Mysore & Anr. v. Govinda Rao & Anr., 1965 AIR(SC) 491 The court defined the broad principles as follows at para. 7:

(3.) The next question to be considered is whether Hon'ble Supreme Court o High Court can issue a writ of quo warranto in an appropriate case as a writ o quo warranto is a common law remedy of a prerogative nature available to th Crown. The Honourable Supreme Court considered the matter regarding th issuance of writ of quo warranto in Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, 1992 AIR(SC) 1213 and held that the High Courts and Supreme Coui can issue a writ of quo warranto in appropriate circumstances. The coui followed its earlier decision in University of Mysore . The facts of th, case is, the President of India by a warrant dated October 15, 1991 under hi hand and seal appointed K.N.Srivastava as a Judge of Gauhati High Court. 11 has not as yet made and subscribed an oath/affirmation as required under Article 219 of the Constitution of India and as such has not entered upon h office. The question under consideration was whether the appointment c Srivastava as High Court Judge is infraction of Arts.217(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution of India. Is he qualified for appointment as a Judge if so has the mandatory process of consultation under the Constitution been followed. F had no mandatory judicial experience or experience in the Bar. His experience was only six months in the assignment for doing judicial work in the Mizoram Government while he was Secretary of Law and he had exercised qua judicial functions earlier. The Supreme Court issued a quo warranto writ preventing him from taking oath. The Apex Court held as follows: