G. VASANTHA PAI Vs. SRI S. RAMACHANDRA IYER NOW HOLDING THE OFFICE OF THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case, G. Vasantha Pai, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking for the issue of a writ of quo warranto against the respondent Shri S. Ramachandra Iyer "now holding the office of the Honourable the Chief Justice of Madras."

(2.) The allegations in the affidavit in support of the petition can be summarised briefly thus:

(3.) The above petition was presented in the office of the High Court on 24th September, 1964 and was also admitted on the same date and rule nisi was issued to the respondent. But no counter -affidavit was filed by the respondent upto the present moment either admitting or denying the allegations of the petitioner. But on 6th March, 1967 Sri P.S. Srisailam, an Advocate of this High Court having obtained a vakalat from the respondent, filed a counter -statement on behalf of the respondent. That counter -statement urged that there were substantial preliminary objections for entertaining this petition. The jurisdiction and power to determine the question of the age of a Judge of a High Court are vested exclusively in the President of India under Article 217(3) of the Constitution, as amended by the 15th Amendment, and that question has to be determined only by the President, and in the manner prescribed therein. This Court has no jurisdiction to deal with or determine such a question. On this ground alone the writ petition was liable to be dismissed in limine. The counter -statement went on to urge that the respondent was no longer in office, and for this reason also the present petition for the issue of a writ of quo warranto had become infructuous and could not be prosecuted any further. The counter -statement added that the respondent would be prepared to state his objections on the merits of the allegations on the petitioner's affidavit if necessary, after this Court had given a decision on the aforesaid preliminary objections.