DALPAT RAJ BHANDARI Vs. PRESIDENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Special Appeal has been directed against the order dated 22-1-91 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3923/90, whereby appellants' Writ petition was dismissed summarily on the ground that it involved political matters and as such the Court was not inclined to go into those controversies.

(2.) Briefly the relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that the appellants filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed that by an appropriate writ, direction or order, the removal of Shri Devilal, the then Dy. Prime Minister (re-spondent No. 4) by the President of India as reported in Rajasthan Patrika, Jodhpur Edi-tion dated 2/08/1990 (Ext. 1) be quashed and statusquo ante be restored by impleading respondent No. 4 as Dy. Prime Minister in the Union Cabinet or Council of Ministers. The appellants contended that they were trying to bring national truth on Na-tion's platform by judicial approach and that they were fighting for the cause of a Rajasthan rural based M.P., who had been illegally sacked from the Union Cabinet. They how-ever did not file the copy of the impugned order, passed by the President of India dis-missing respondent No. 4 from the Central Council of Ministers on the recommendation of Shri V. P. Singh, the then Prime Minister of India. They also did not file the certified copy of the letter of Shri V. P. Singh written to Shri Devilal. However, they relied on the text of the said letter published in Hindi (Ext.1/A) in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 2/08/1990. The case of the appellants was that Shri Devilal was dismissed from the Cabinet on the ground that he had violated the principles of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers, that he had allegedly written a forged letter and levelled corruption charges against his colleagues and failed to submit any proof thereof despite opportunity and that he had also accused the Prime Minister in an interview given to Illustrated Weekly. The appellants contended that the Constitution of India does not provide any specific method for removal of the Dy. Prime Minister or the Minister and that as per provisions of Art. 367, unless the context otherwise requires, the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897 shall, subject to any adop-tion or modifications that may be made therein under Art. 372, apply for the interpretation and that as per provisions of S. 16(15) of General Clauses Act, the power of ap-pointment includes the power of suspension or dismissal. According to the appellants, for the removal or dismissal of Ministers, the principles of natural justice will apply and since no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to Shri Devilal, his impugned dismissal from the post of Dy. Prime Minister was ex facie illegal. They have submitted that though under Art. 75(2) of the Constitution of India, the Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of President, such "pleasure" can be exercised as "pleasure simpliciter" only and not with any extraneous considerations. According to them, as per next of the letter written by Shri V. P. Singh, the then Prime Minister to Shri Devilal (respondent No. 4) which was published in Rajasthan Patrika (Ex. 1/A), the latter was guilty of committing the alleged breach of the principle of col-lective responsibility, for sending the alleged forged letter to the President of India and for entering into a shallow conspirary. But for the said misconducts, no enquiry whatsoever was conducted. Thus, the dismissal of respondent No. 4, according to the appellants, was patently illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of Arts. 14 and 75(4) of the Con-stitution. The appellants therefore, prayed that the President's order dismissing/remov-ing Shri Devilal as Dy. Prime Minister of India be quashed and the statusquo ante be restored.

(3.) The learned single Judge by his im-pugned order dated 22-1-91 dismissing the said writ petition held that the appointment of Shri Devilal as Dy. Prime Minister of India and his resignation against appointment as Dy. Prime Minister were ah political matters and that the Court was not inclined to go into those controversies. Hence this appeal.