DRONAMRAJU SATYANARAYANA Vs. N T RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Article 164 (1) of the Constitution of India lays down : "The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor".

(2.) Whether the High Court in exercise of its high prerogative writjurisdiction under Art. 276 of the Constitution would issue a writ of quo warranto or a writ by way of information in the nature of quo warranto declaring that the Chief Minister of the State, duly elected to the Legislative Assembly, appointed and sworn in by the Governor in accordance with clauses (1) and (3) of Art. 164 of the Constitution, has forfeited his right to continue in office on the grounds raised and the allegations made in the affidavit, is the important constitutional issue that arises for decision in this writ petition.

(3.) The submission made by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, was that the gravity of the charges levelled against the first respondent-Chief Minister, Sri N. T. Rama Rao, was so serious as to shock the conscience of the Court; this Court which was entitled to mould the relief in such manner as was most suited for furthering the ends of justice should not hesitate to declare that he (the Chief Minister) had forfeited his right to hold the office ; and no technical plea, either of locus standi or of justiciability, should be allowed to stand in the way of a decision being rendered on the merits of the case. He also added that the charges levelled against the Chief Minister remained unrebutted in spite of his having filed a counter-affidavit.