The pleasure of dismissing or removing a State Minister has to be that of the Governor and not that of the High Court. The High Court, therefore, cannot issue a writ of quo warranto for removing a Minister.
The First Bench of the Madras High Court comprising the Chief Justice M.Y.Eqbal and Justice T.S.Sivagnanam made the observation while dismissing a petition seeking the issue of a writ directing Tamil Nadu Forest Minister, K.T.Pachamal, to show under what authority he functioned as a Minister in the face of well-documented allegations of breaking the law.
The petitioner, K.R. Ramaswamy alias ‘Traffic' Ramaswamy alleged that the Minister had violated the City Municipal Corporation Act by erecting digital banners. Mr. Ramaswamy said while he was travelling on Kamarajar Salai from Lighthouse to Parry's Corner, he found several digital banners fixed to lampposts.
The Bench said there was no whisper in the petition that those banners had been fixed by the Minister. Hence, it called upon the petitioner to convince the court as to how and under what law he had made such a prayer, even assuming that the Minister had violated the law.
The petitioner expressed apology and said some direction could be issued. “We deprecate the practice of filing such a petition designed as public interest litigation.” The Supreme Court and other High Courts in a series of decisions had held that a writ of quo warranto could not be issued for removing Ministers, who were people's representatives. The remedy was available in the Constitution and a writ court could not issue a writ of quo warranto.
The Bench said the High Court had earlier held that State Ministers were appointed by the Governor albeit on the advice of the Chief Minister and they held their office during the pleasure of the Governor.
“A complete machinery has been provided in the Constitution for the removal or disqualification of a Minister.” The contention made in the writ petition was wholly misconceived, the Bench said and dismissed the petition.
