CITIZEN RIGHTS PROTECTION FORUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 and article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, which claims to be a society registered under the societies Registration Act has claimed the following relief. - (i) That the respondent No.2 be directed to reconstitute the Council of Ministers as per Article 164 of the Constitution of India and as per the law immediately. (ii) That the respondents No.2 and 3 may kindly be restrained from inducting any fresh member in the Council of Ministers including Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries. (iii) That in case the respondent No 2 does not reconstitute the council of ministers as per the Article 164 of the Constitution of India, the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.2 in accordance with law. (iv) That the public money spent on respondents No 2, 4 to 15 being members of the council of Ministers after the amendment in article 164 came into force may kindly be ordered to be recovered from them and deposited in the Government treasury to be used for a public purpose, and orders passed by respondent No. 15 be declared nonest. (v) That the records pertaining to this case may kindly be called for. (vi) Any other order which this Honble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (vii) That the petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout"

(2.) BY the Constitution (91 ist Amendment) Act 2003, amongst various other provisions of the Constitution of India, Article 164 was amended in which amongst other insertions, a new Clause (LA) was inserted which reads thus: - (IA) The Total number of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, in the council of Minister in a State shall not exceed fifteen per cent of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly of that State: Provided that the number of Ministers, including the Chief Minister in a State shall not be less than twelve: Provided further that where the total number of Ministers including the Chief Minister in the council of Ministers in any State at the commencement of the Constitution (Ninety -first Amendment) Act, 2003 excess the said fifteen per cent or the number specified in the first proviso, as the case may be, then the total number Ministers in that state shall be brought in conformity with the provisions of this clause within six months from such date as the President may by public notification appoint"

(3.) THE dispute in this petition, therefore, if at all, is only with respect to respondent No. 15 Shri Mukesh Agnihortri, who has been styled as Chief parliamentary Secretary. The petitioners contention, probably and perhaps based on petitioners own apprehension is that respondent No. 15 also being a Minister, the number of Ministers in Himachal Pradesh crosses the mark of "12" and, therefore, this violates the mandatory Constitutional requirement as contained in Clause (1A) of Article 164 of the Constitution of India. The fact that respondent No. 15 is neither a Minister nor is he being treated as a Minister nor the state Government thinks or considers him to be a Minister is clearly borne out from the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.3 in which this respondent has specifically made the following statement/averment: - "Respondent No. 15 has not been allotted any portfolio whatsoever and is not part of the Council of Ministers. The petitioner is, therefore, guilty of making deliberate false averments in the writ petition. This false averment has been deliberately made as is apparent from the verification (the petition is verified not to the knowledge of the petitioner as required by law but to "the best of my personal knowledge", which is deliberate).The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this short ground alone."