VINOD AVASTHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the course of heraing today, the petitioner, who argued his case himself sought the following reliefs from the court - i/ that the proclamation issued by the Central Govt. invoking Presidents Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India be revoked and rescinded by issuance of writ of certiorari and writ of mandamus be issued for installing an elected government in Jammu and Kashmir State; iil If the aforesaid relief was not granted to the petitioner, alternatively he prayed that mandamus be issued to the Central Govt. commanding it to recall the present incumbent of the office of Governor and in his place appoint some one else as the Governor of the State. iii/ the petitioner also prayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the appropriate Govt. to order and launch the prosecution against the present Governor of J & K state. iv/ The petitioner is reported to have sent a representation to the President of India relating to the imposition of Presidents Rule and "other connected matters. He wants this court to issue a direction to the Central Govt. for disposal of his aforesaid representation. v/ Lastly, the petitioner wants this court to ensure justice to the people of Jammu and Kashmir State.

(2.) I would not like to comment about the motive of the petitioner or any compelling reasons by which he appears to have been impelled to approach this court. I would only like to observe that perhaps the petitioner was not aware of the existence of the appropriate provisions which define in well contained para -meters the powers of this court as also the limitations imposed upon these powers. It also appears that the petitioner perhaps confused the exercise of the powers of this court with some other authorities. It would have been much better, had the petitioner obtained legal advice on the subject matter of this petition before approaching this court and filing this mis -conceived petition. Any Law -man would have advised the petitioner against taking the step, of filing the present petition.

(3.) COMING to the prayer of the petitioner, it is held that this court does not have either any jurisdiction or any authority to adjudicate upon the subject matter of this petition. This court is not an authority which decides about the issues involved herein relating to the imposition or revocation of the Presidents Rule, the recalling of the State Governor and/or his substitution by another incumbent. It is also not for this court to decide as to when and if at all, conditions are ripe or not for revocation of Presidents Rule and for installation of a popular Government. It is held that it is beyond any controversy now that these are all matters which are best left to be decided by the appropriate Govt. and its functionaries. Even making comments upon these matters is outside the realm of this Courts jurisdiction and this court is best advised to refrain from stepping into field. If this court tries to do that, it shall be transgressing out of the well defined Para -meters which is the hall mark of the constitutional system under which jurisdiction under Article 226 is exercised. Indeed this court has no power to enter into that field.