AHMED EHTESHAM KAWKAB Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the Director, Software Technology Parks of India (STPI), Hyderabad, (a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860), an officer of the Central Government not below the rank of Deputy Secretary? It is only if he is, would he be eligible, under Section 11(1) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (S.E.Z. Act), to be appointed as a Development Commissioner of one or more Special Economic Zones. The petitioner herein seeks a writ of quo warranto to quash and set aside the order of thE Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.11.2007, appointing the 5th respondent as the Development Commissioner of thirty Special Economic Zones in Andhra Pradesh.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that the Government of India, by resolution dated 18.12.1986, announced its policy on software export, software development and training. The resolution provided for an inter-ministerial standing committee to function as an effective instrument for single point clearance and ter, on 5.6.1991, STPI was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee, constituted by the Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industry, Government of India issued notification dated 22.2.1992 delegating specific powers of the Committee to the jurisdictional Directors of STPI. Pursuant to the aforementioned resolution dated 18.12.1986 the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 3(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, (Act 22 of 1992), notified a Scheme on 22.3.1994 called the "Software Technology Parks (STP) Scheme". This 100% export oriented Scheme, for undertaking software development, was to be administered by the Department of Electronics through the Directors of the respective STPIs. By virtue of the said notification dated 22.3.1994, Directors of STPI were conferred the powers of Development Commissioner in respect of software related imports and exports. The Central Government issued notification dated 10.8.2000 appointing Directors of various STPIs, including the Director, STPI Hyderabad, as Designated officers for implementing the STP schemes. The Central Government issued notification dated 30.1.2006 appointing Designated officers, (including the Directors of STPI), to exercise powers of adjudication under Section 13 read with Section 11 of Act 22 of 1992. Under the impugned notification the Central Government, in purported exercise of its powers under Section 11 (1) of the S.E.Z. Act, appointed the Director, STPI, Hyderabad to be the Development Commissioner of thirty Special Economic Zones.

(3.) As the petitioner seeks a Writ of Quo warranto it is necessary, at the outset, to examine its scope. A writ of quo warranto is a writ which lies against the person who, according to the relator, is not entitled to hold an office of a public nature and is only a usurper of the office. It is the person, against whom the writ of quo warranto is directed, who is required to show by what authority he is entitled to hold the office. The challenge can be made on various grounds including on grounds that the possessor of the office does not fulfill the required qualifications or suffers from any disqualification, which debars him from holding such office. (B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamilnadu, 2001 7 SCC 231 ). Quo warranto proceedings afford a judicial enquiry in which the person, holding an independent substantive public office or franchise, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office or franchise. If the inquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, issue of a writ of quo waranto ousts him from that office. The procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointment to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions. These proceedings tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office and, if the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted.