LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-41

MANOHAR Vs. GOPAL DHAVAN AND ORS.

Decided On February 04, 2016
MANOHAR Appellant
V/S
Gopal Dhavan And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.A.P.Gera, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.D.Samel, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.Rohit Deo, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent nos. 3 to 5.

(2.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a public spirited citizen, seeking a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the proceedings of respondent no.3 whereby respondent no.1 has been reemployed and also seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto against respondent no.1.

(3.) It Is The Contention Of The Petitioner That ReEmployment Of respondent no.1, after he attained the age of 60 years, for a further period of two years is totally impermissible in view of the Handbook for Personnel Officers (published by DOP & T of the Government of India containing instructions on the grant of extension of service/reemployment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation). Learned Counsel submits that respondent no.2/Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. has got separate status under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 inasmuch as u/s.4 thereof, though for the purpose of prospecting or mining, licenses are required to be obtained by all others except the few exceptions including respondent no.2. It is, therefore, submitted that since no prospecting license is required to be obtained by respondent no.2, it exercises sovereign functions by carrying out activities of mining. It is, therefore, submitted that since respondent no.1 is appointed Head of respondent no.2 which exercises sovereign functions, the said Office will have to be considered as an Office which exercises sovereign functions and as such, the same would fit within the ambit of term 'public Office'. Mr.A.P.Gera, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, by wide interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the meaning of term 'public Office' has been expanded substantially and therefore, on account of development of law, this Court will have to include the Office which is occupied by respondent no.1 within the meaning of term 'public Office'.