IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35412 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ C.V.JOHN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, CHEMMAZHATH HOUSE, KEERAMBARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN 686 691. BY ADV. DR.K.B.SURESH RESPONDENTS:- ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, NEW DELHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. SHRI.JACOB PUNNOOSE I.P.S., PRESENTLY DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BEUREAU, TRIVANDRUM. R3 & R4 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH &. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.35412 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. A public spirited citizen is before us, inter alia calling in question the decision taken by the Cabinet to select and appoint the 4th respondent as Director General of Police (Law & Order), Kerala. (2). In the writ petition, petitioner prays for a declaration, to declare, that, the 4th respondent is incompetent to be a repository of the sensitive trust required of a Director General of Police (Law & Order), Kerala, and, in view of Ext.P1 judgment, the 4th respondent is not entitled to hold the post of Director General of Police (Law & Order), Kerala. The other prayer in the writ petition is, to issue a writ of quo-warranto by enquiring into by what authority the 4th respondent supported his claim to be appointed as Director General of Police (Law & Order), Kerala. (3). Petitioner in the writ petition asserts, that, in view of Ext.P1 order passed by this Court, the 4th respondent is ineligible to be appointed as Director General of Police (Law & Order), Kerala. W.P.C. No. 35412/2008 -2- (4). First and foremost, in Ext.P1 order, the 4th respondent was not even a party. When the order was passed by this Court, he was not even heard in the matter. Certain remarks are made by the Court and those are general remarks, which is made applicable to the entire police force in the State of Kerala. (5). The Apex Court in the case of University of Mysore Vs. Govinda Rao (AIR 1965 SC 491) has succinctly explained the question that requires to be asked by a Court before issuing a writ of quo-warranto. In the said decision the Court has stated as under: “Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him from that office. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted subject to the conditions recognised in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office; in some cases, persons not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy them and to continue to hold them as a result of the connivance of the executive or with its active help, and in such cases, if the jurisdiction of the courts to issue W.P.C. No. 35412/2008 -3- writ of quo warranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted and the person entitled to the post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not.” (6). It is not the case of the petitioner before this Court, that, the 4th respondent does not have the requisite qualification as prescribed under the statutory provisions. The primary case of the petitioner before this Court is that, in view of certain observations made by this Court in Ext.P1 order, the 4th respondent is ineligible to be selected and appointed as Director General of Police (Law & Order), Kerala. In our opinion, the remarks made by the learned Single Judge would not come in the way of the Cabinet taking a decision to select and appoint 4th respondent as the Director General of Police (Law & Order), Kerala, since those observations are general in nature and not against a particular police officer. (7). Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others { (2006) 8 SCC 1 }. In our W.P.C. No. 35412/2008 -4- opinion, the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case would in no way assist the petitioner in support of the reliefs sought in this writ petition. (8). In view of the above, the Writ Petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected in limine. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS/dk.