D SATYANARAYANA Vs. N T RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of the extraordinary cases without any parallel; not a lis of the mundane orthodox pattern; but a unique public interest litigation which seeks to explore the realm of accountability of the executive to the people through the judiciary; hence it assumes great significance, and has naturally attracted considerable attention of the public.

(2.) The petitioner, Sri Dronamraju Satyanarayana, a public worker and the Organising Secretary of the Coastal Districts Congress-I Committee of Andhra Pradesh, filed four writ petitions : 12425/87, 12426/87. 12427/87 and 12805/87 in this Court on 24-81987 alleging various violations of laws and constitutional provisions by Shri N.T. Rama Rao, the first respondent-Chief Minister, and the State Government, the second respondent. A common affidavit running into 193 pages was filed in support of the reliefs sought. He sought a writ of quo warranto in W.P. No. 12425/87 against the first respondent declaring that he was an usurper of the office of the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh, and for a consequential direction for his removal therefrom. In Writ Petition No. 12426/87 he sought a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to appoint a judicial Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 for enquiring into the misdeeds of "Corruption and abuse of authority by the first respondent." In respect of the alleged fiscal crimes committed by the first respondent, the relief sought by the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 12805/87 is a direction to the Central Government by way of writ of mandamus "to take appropriate penal action including prosecution" against the first respondent. In W.P. No. 12427/87, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to exercise its Constitutional power, discharge its Constitutional duty under Articles 355, 356 and 357 of the Constitution of India; decide whether the conditions contemplated in the aforesaid provisions are existing in the State of Andhra Pradesh; and if so, to initiate constitutional action for imposing President's Rule in the State.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court, in view of the importance and the gamut of the questions of public law raised in the writ petitions, ordered notice on September 8, 1987 to the respondents to show cause why the writ petitions should not be admitted, notice was also issued to the Attorney-General of India requesting him to appear and assist the Court. A Full Bench of this Court after hearing Sri K. Parasaran, the learned Attorney-General, the learned counsel for the parties and interveners, including Sri N.A. Palkhivala, a noted Jurist, who appeared for the first respondent, dismissed the writ petitions - W.P. No. 12425/87 (Writ of Quo-Warranto); and W.P. No. 12427/87 (Writ of Mandamus for imposition of President's Rule) by the judgement dated November 2, 1987. The other two writ petitions - W.P. No. 12426/87 (Writ of Mandamus for appointment of Commission of Inquiry) and W.P. No. 12805/87 (Writ of Mandamus for direction to the Central Government to prosecute the first respondent for fiscal offences) were admitted on the same day. In view of the importance of the complex questions of law raised this larger Bench of five Judges was constituted. This common judgement will dispose of both the writ petitions since the question for decision in both the writ petitions are interlinked.