Udho Ram Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Judgment

3. of Chhattisgarh, State Secrefary, Department of Agriculture, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). through Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi through Managing Vikas Nigam Ltd., Director, Telibandha, Mahasamund Road, Raipur (CG). Chandrashekhar Sahu, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Sri Sundar Lal Sahu, President Beej Vikas Nigam Limited, Telibandha, Mahasamund Road, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- v

Shri Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Advocate General respondent No.1. the State/ Ms Pinky Anand, Sr. Advocate with Shri A.S. Kachhawaha and Shri Balendu Shekhar, Advocates for the respondent No.2. Shri Shri B.P.Sharma, Advocate with Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on this _/3^day of July, 2009) Heard learned counset for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto declaring the respondent No.3 to hold the office of Chairman, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited (for short "the respondent No.2/Corporation") as null and void being contrary to the provisions of Article 319 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also prays for quashment of the appointment letter dated 5-2-2007 (Annexure ~ P/1-B) whereby the respondent No.3 was appointed as Chairman ofthe respondent No.2/Corporation. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are ^3^ that the respondent No.3 was a member of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short "the PSC") from 25-10-2004 to 9-1-2006. The respondent No.3 tendered his resignation from the post of Member, PSC by his letter dated 10-1-2006. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 was appointed as Chairman of the respondent No.2/Corporation by order dated 5-2-2007 (Annexure - P/1-B) by the State Government in exercise of its power under Article 74 (a) of the Memorandum & Articles of Association respondent No.2/Corporation. Thus, this petition for a writ of quo warranto. During pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No.3 tendered his resignation by letter dated 22-12-2008 from the post of Chairman the respondent No.2/Corporation. After resignation of respondent No.3 from the post of Chairman of the respondent No.2/Corporation, one Shri Sergius Minj, Additional Chief Secretary and Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, was appointed as Chairman of the respondent No.2/Corporation on ^' 5-2-2009. Now the question arises for consideration asto whether on tendering resignation by the respondent No.3 from the post of Chairman of the respondent No.2/Corporation, this writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against the respondent No.3, who was holding the post of Chairman of respondent No-2/Corporation become academic.

6. On 13-4-2009 this Court has framed issues; firstly; whether the petition has become academic, in view of the fact that the respondent No.3 has tendered resignation ? and secondly; whether the decisions taken and orders passed by the respondent No.3 are vitiated ? As far as question No.2 is concerned, it was urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner this question may be required to be adjudicated upon if the case is heard on merits and a writ of quo warranto against the respondent No.3 is granted. Even otherwise, there is no prayer for declaring all the orders passed by respondent No.3, Chairman respondent No.2/Corporation as nullity or void ab initio. Thus, 1 am not considering this question at present.

8. With regard to first question asto whether the petition has become academic is concerned, Shri Kanak Tiwari, learned senior counsel appearing with Shri Varun Sharma, learned counsel forthe petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is seeking a writ of quo warranto not against respondent No.3 but against the State Government, as under what authority the State Government has appointed the respondent No.3 on the post of Chairman of respondent No.2/Corporation when there is a clear prohibition under Article 319 of the Constitution of India for a member of the PSC to hold any office either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State.

9. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No.1, per contra, would submit the relief sought for in the present writ petition does not survive after tendering resignation by the respondent No.3 from the post of Chairman of the respondent No.2/Corporation and, as such, a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued and the matter has become academic. In support of his contention Shri Mishra, placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Govt. of National Capital Temtory, Delhi vs. Inder Pal Singh Chadha and Others , Kusum Ingots & Allots Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another , High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and 1 2