S^JS^^ia^fti^^SN^Ws^'i^g^^fiR-i^^'^Kti^'^^^ i^^«*,M^^raffiei<ja^da5^^ n,^?@i^^^^^^^-^^S%;^^^^S^^@^ ^.::,|v-;S.S-^ KK^^SS 'y^WgsS&S iSSItSIIfi' '^^^^^ii^M^i^' %i;^';'ailBgiRBSffi 'VSWSSS^ t!.rii«3iaL!i*Mi,.vi.!iiKM|i».,fffitrt>,stajita i—78 \:0 sn^ss y^ h-f WIT 311^1 sbt< ^P.cCf^)3S^ Tc? '<<i<<i0<i,;e)Tflyi(a, Ri^i^y , 'X)-PCP-R.3\/o.3°>.3% MWffll **1|eh"""'""^"^^"^"7^^","^"'y-'^ 200-? ^ww^ an^?r TRg; (Tpftp^s) TOirar^ifcisn^r 14.1.^)08 Shri D.P. Saraf, the peti The inatter is Hsted ou dated 11.5.2007. tjioner, prescat iu person. efault as pointed out vide ofBicc note The petitioner vide his raised objection against the RegisteaT (J). He filed yet ano|ther No.2} whereia it has been pra5 ttie altemative ttie petitioncr respondent No. 1 fioin the arr^ The inatter was listed 1 llie petitioner was aUowed objection. The petittoner has flA No. 3) for amendment in allowed to implead respondeni to the Presidentf. mi2008ia S<»1 contended India does uot bar unptead|ing RFesident or fhe Govemor. Tb q»t?i?<n<il*i +ii*^if ^f^^ <n>l't5T< ^sifWTSII^T slpplication dated 11.6.2007 {IA No.l} trder dated 11.5.2007 of Additional applioation dated 24.8.2007 {IA ^ed fhat fhe defeult be set aside or in |be permitted to delete fhe name of brofthe respotidenfes. tefore fhe Court on 10.12.2007 aad fotir weeks' tune to remove the ofGce ^noved aa appUcation dated 2. 1.2008 fhfe petition and prayed fhat he may be No. 1 Through Seeretaiy {Secrctary :liance in the inatter of Ramesdiwar The petitipner placing r); Prasad aad otItCTs (VIf Vs. U|nloa of Indla aad aaother reported <hat Article 361 of thc Constitution of aad issiiance of iiotice to the te iastant petitkia emi be hemid and HC—78 ^^? CT^fw l<;-1i<t) ?fSff 31^2?r ^+iich 3^'ONK'tii, WTfl'M'is, ficii'yy N^T g^^.^^^.3^^... ^^i^lZf^ 2"p CT^T 'vw (.'ySyi^y) TSIIWdfcl 311^1 adjudicated witaout notice to various judginents of fhe High Courts mentioned in 11th June 2007 to saiswiDS fhe respondent No. 1 deiuonsteAte 1|iic respondeiit No. 1. He has cited Supreine Coiut and difierent 2 of his appUcation dated that the petillon xaay be fited ^s a party. HoilBle pa|-agrapli Rames ixv In the matter of effect ofArtide 361 offheGou^ has been categoricalfy held tfijat articte shows ttiat thcre M a <jom issuc of notice to the F^'esideal are not answerable to aay cou|rt oftfaeir powers and duties. H^ aaswerability piovided in Arti4 docs not bar the cliaUer^c tha|t bar under Article 361 is onfy| issue notice or inakmg the In view ofthe bar, fhe Cpiurt or the Govemor for even fi1mg| personal imjniuuty under there is no questiou of fhe answerable to thc Court in restect ^)|^<?l4tl *iW^ '^f.'f^Sl' TfSR^R ^? arRiti 3ii^r Prwseul (saprs^ considering tfae [titution oflndia ia paragraph 173 it a plain readmg offhc a&resaid [ompletc bar to thc impfeadmg aad or fhe Govemor inasjnuch as fhey for fhe exercise aad performaace bwever, the personal unmiuuty fioin :le 361 of the Constitution of india may be loade to tiieir acttons. Thc ayainst fae power of the Court to or fhc Govemor answerable. issuc direction to the President ofafiBdavit to assist the Court 'The 361(1) is coinplete and, fherefore, or fhc Goveimor bcing made ofeven chai^es ofmala fldes. Prtsident calniiot Artidle Prtsident 3:E5T "qi^K^O, SSTfly'KS, fa<'i|ti^< ^^^-^•^•^^ an^r'q'ra; (T?f^??T) sn^r wctow ^IT 'STI^T sh*1 waTW ^fei aii^i in par^raph 179 of thc held as under;- ^ •'179. The position in Govenior enjoys coinplets not auswerable to auy performaucc of fhe for any act done or the exercise and perfon duties. The iimnuiuty not, howevcr, take awai exaaune thc vaJidity of ground ofinala fides." law, fh.erefore, is that fhe uninuni'fy. Thc Oovefaor is Icourt for the exercise and and duties of his ofBce or to bc done by him in 'onjnance of thosc powers and g^-anted by Artfcle 361(1) does fhe power of the Coiut to |ffic actma inclurlJTig on the powefs piu^ortu^j in view of the above Bencli, the .uistant petitk»n entertained itntess fhe pctitk>D|er the nainc of respondent No. 1 The petittouer is finalty aUowe^ fhe defa.ult If the default is| period, fhe petition shaU staad| Beach. In view of above, I.A.Nos. | CM<ltCT<l1T1 ^W^t '^^t^ ^•^.K ^? arRiq sn^r above cited judgment it has becu Nw laid dowa by fhe Constitutiou |in fhe pireseat fenn cannoit be renioves fhe defaiilt aad deletes fiTom fhe array of fhe respondents. fiuther four weeks' time to reiacwe uot reinoved withia the aforesaki dismissed without reference to fhe 1, 2 & 3 stand disposed of, 1-^^