(1.) ONE T. Fenn Walter and 13 other Advocates, practising in the High Court and Subordinate Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu, have filed this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation with the allegation that the appointment of a sitting Judge of this Court as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry for a period of five years vide G.O.Ms.No.2, Civil Supplies Department, Pondicherry dated 21.5.1999 is bad and he has to vacate his office as Judge of this Court. In this writ petition they seek for the issuance of a writ of quo-warranto that the abovementioned sitting Judge of this Court has no authority to hold the judgeship of this Court after his appointment as President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') as he ceased to hold the office of Judgeship, in view of Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that even after his appointment as President of the Commission, the first respondent continues functioning as a Judge of this Court, which is contrary to constitutional scheme, independence of judiciary and impartial dispensation and administration of justice. It is further stated that previous incumbents accepted such posts only after vacating the office as Judge of High Court.
(3.) THE learned counsel made particular reference to paragraphs 41, 42, 43-end, 48, 78, 81, 88, 8.63, 8.64, 8.65, 89, 93, and 95 to 97 in Chandra Kumar's case, AIR 1997 SC 1125; paragraphs 5, 66, 70, 74 and 76 in R.K.Jain's Case, 1993 (4) SCC 119; paragraphs 74, 81,322, 324, 331, 336 and 351 in Second Judge's case, 1993 (4) SCC 441 as also paragraphs 429, 433 and 477 in the majority view of the same case; and paragraphs 37, 96, 100, 219, 304 and 434 in S.R.Bommai and others v. Union of India and others, 1994 (3) SCC 1.