M SURESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate and who claims to be carrying on social activities for the welfare of the public at large, has come up with the above writ petition seeking issue of a writ of Quo Warranto questioning the authority of the sixth respondent to hold the office of the Director General of Police in Tamil Nadu. We have heard Mr. G. Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General and Mr. P.H. Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

(2.) Before getting into the controversy raised in this writ petition, it is necessary to take note of certain facts, against the backdrop of which, the issues raised herein may have to be considered. Therefore, they are recorded as follows:

(3.) Before proceeding to consider the contentions of the petitioner, we wish to take note of one thing that the petitioner did, before filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court, but immediately after the Supreme Court passed the order dated 16.10.2012 permitting the Union Public Service Commission to forward a panel and permitting the State Government to choose a person. The petitioner first sent a representation dated 25.10.2012 to the Secretary of the Union Public Service Commission, with copies to the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, Cabinet Secretary and Home Secretary and then issued telegrams dated 29.10.2012 to the Union Home Secretary, Joint Secretary to Ministry of Home Affairs and the Chairman and Secretary to Union Public Service Commission. By these, the petitioner actually requested them not to allow the State of Tamil Nadu to go ahead with the appointment of the sixth respondent. The last paragraph of the representation dated 25.10.2012 made by the petitioner to these authorities, is extracted as follows: