N RAMU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondents 1 and 2 were ordered to be deleted on 30-11-1994. The learned Advocate General, took notice for respondents 3 and 4 on the said date and stated that counter-affidavit would be filed. Thereafter counter-affidavits were filed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the following are the facts which are considered necessary and relevant for the disposal of this writ petition :- The petitioner states that he is a practising advocate in the High Court for the past 18 years. He is filing the writ petition as a public interest litigation without any motive against the respondents for redressal of the public injury and to quash the unconstitutional actions of the respondents 3 and 4. The third respondent is responsible for the policy decisions of the State.

(3.) According to the petitioner the Executive power of the State vested with the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through Officers subordinate to him as contemplated under Article 154; the executive power of the State is co-extensive with the legislative power; every member of the public knew about the existence of a cold war between the Chief Minister and the Governor; the Chief Minister deliberately violated the precedents and the constitutional provisions; as contemplated under Article 167 it is the constitutional duty of the Chief Minister to communicate to the Governor all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration - affairs of the State and proposals for legislations; this Court has to issue proper directions to the Chief Minister to do her constitutional duty under Art. 167; the third respondent with the oblique motive has deliberately violated the constitutional provisions stipulated under Article 164 of the Constitution and violated the oath of office and secrecy set out in the third schedule to the Constitution; the third respondent further violated the provisions laid down under Articles 166 and 167; the third respondent never met the second respondent to render her constitutional duties; and the unconstitutional activities of the third respondent clearly proved her mala fides.