UNION OF INDIA Vs. K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A gubernatorial dispute is the focal point of this controversy that led to the filing of a writ petition by the first respondent after a communication dated 27.1.2017 was delivered by the fourth respondent to the Central Government, addressed to the Home Minister, with a copy of the same to the Prime Minister of the country. The communication expressed a painful inharmonious feeling that was almost desperate in content and arose out of an understanding that the communication reflected a disrespectful attitude towards Her Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor and Administrator of Puducherry. It almost indicated a constitutional crisis, where the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry felt it would be no longer possible for her to discharge the duties of her office with the resources at her command. Her communication narrated as if the edifice of the Constitution might be ruined on account of disregard to mutual respect by constitutional authorities and, therefore, a timely intervention by calling upon the Chief Minister of the State to recall the communication was the only course to save and avoid this situation. As to what had actually transpired, the language or the material that was employed and what impression had been gathered appears to have been communicated terming it as unwarranted. A conscientious scrutiny upon systematic examination was expected from the Home Ministry of the failing effectiveness of the discharge of duties by constitutional functionaries.

(2.) The background appears to be a discontent, a fastidious approach that got converted into almost a battle of words. The taking of strong positions almost headed towards a paralysis of performance. Thus, an opportunity that befell before constitutional authorities by the will of the people and the mandate of the Constitution seemed to be giving up harmony. The result of this discontent reminds us of Omar Ibn, who said "Four things come not back: the spoken word; the sped arrow; the time past and the neglected opportunity."

(3.) The challenge before the learned Single Judge found favour with the first respondent/writ petitioner and the writ petition was allowed, in our opinion, on the premise of almost an equality enjoyed by elected government and Legislature of a Union Territory to be constitutionally at par with the States of the Union. The learned Single Judge further on an examination of the relevant provisions applicable to the controversy culled out that the legality of the matter also indicated a default in the role played by the Central Government, as was evident from the impugned communications, resulting in quashing of the same.