AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—The above writ petition has been filed for issuing a Writ of Quo Warranto questioning the nomination of one Tmt. K.
Ramathal as the Chairperson of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women.
When such matter was listed for hearing, it was found that the writ petitioner had not impleaded the incumbent, namely, Tmt. K.M. Ramathal as
Respondent. However, since it was found necessary to implead such person, whose appointment to the post of Chairperson was in question, this
Court suomotu impleaded the incumbent Tmt. K.M. Ramathal as Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition.
Petitioner is a practicing lawyer. As per G.O.Ms. No. 72, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, dated 19.3.1993, the State
Commission for Women was constituted, which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Notification, dated 21.4.1993. Para 2 of
the said Notification provides that the Tamil Nadu Commission for women shall consist of a Chairperson, who shall be a retired Judge, committee
[There is an obvious printing mistake. The correct expression is obviously ""committed"".] to the cause of Women, to be nominated by the State
Government. As per para 3 of the said Notification, the Chairperson and every Member shall hold office for one year, from the date of their
nomination. Para 6 of the said Notification is as follows:
The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:
(a) investigate and examine all matters relating to the safeguards provided for women under the Constitution and other laws;
(b) present to the State Government annually and at such other times as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of these
safeguards and make in such reports recommendations for the effective implementation of those safeguards for improving the conditions of women;
(c) review, from time to time, the existing provisions of the Constitution and other laws affecting women and recommend amendments thereto so as
to suggest remedial legislative measures to meet any lacunae, inadequacies or shortcomings in such legislations;
(d) take up the cases of violation of the provisions of the constitution and of other laws relating to women with the appropriate authorities;
(e) look into the complaints relating to:
(i) deprivation of women''s rights;
(ii) non-implementation of laws enacted to provide protection to women and also to achieve the objective of equality and development;
(f) call for special studies or investigations into specific problems or situations arising out of discrimination and atrocities against women and identify
the constraints so as to recommend strategies for their removal;
(g) undertake promotional and educational research so as to suggest ways and ensuring due representation of women in all spheres and identify
factors responsible for impeding their advancement;
(h) inspect of cause to be inspected jail, remand home, women''s institution or other place of custody where women are kept as prisoners or
otherwise, and take up with the concerned authorities for remedial action, if found necessary;
(i) any other matter which may be referred to it by the State Government.
In the above background, it is specifically contended in the writ petition that as per para 2 of the Notification only a retired Judge of the High
Court is eligible to be appointed as Chairperson of the Commission and, therefore, such person is not eligible to hold the office of the Chairperson.
Apart from the above, several allegations have been made relating to alleged malfunctioning by the Chairperson. However, for the purpose of
deciding the present case, it is not necessary to refer to any of those allegations. It has been further averred in the writ petition that the Chairperson
is to hold the office for one year from the date of nomination. On the aforesaid basis, it is contended that apart from the fact Respondent No. 3
was ineligible, she has also completed the period of one year from her initial nomination as Chairperson and, therefore, appropriate writ of Quo
Warranto should be issued.
A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, namely, the Chief Secretary to Government, by the Additional Secretary to
Government in Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department. In such counter affidavit, it has been stated that a statutory provision
has now been made as per the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women Act, 2008 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 2008), whereunder the requirement
regarding nomination of a retired Judge as Chairperson has been done away with and instead it is provided that ""a Chairperson, who shall be an
eminent woman committed to the cause of women to be nominated by the Government"". Moreover, in Section 4 of Act 31 of 2008 it is also
provided that the Chairperson shall hold office for a period not exceeding three years. Even though the requirement as per the original G.O.Ms.
No. 72, dated 19.3.1993, regarding appointment of a retired Judge as Chairperson is not denied, it has been highlighted that subsequently several
other persons, who were not retired High Court Judges, had been appointed as Chairperson of the State Commission for Women. Regarding the
tenure it had been stated that, though initially the tenure was for one year, subsequently, by the letter issued by the Government such tenure was
fixed at three years. It is also contended that at any rate in view of the subsequent statute, the person now holding the office is eligible and,
therefore, the writ of Quo Warranto is not required to be issued.
In the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 1 and 2, apart from taking a stand similar to that of Respondent No. 2, it has been stated that the
present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner not on account of any public interest, but in view of the private grievance of the petitioner on
account of a matter concerning the writ petitioner, which had already been dealt with by the Chairperson.
At the time of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Advocate General appearing for Respondent No. 2 has contended that G.O.Ms. No. 72,
dated 19.3.1993, was merely an executive instruction and even assuming that there was some violation of such executive instruction while making
the appointment, no writ of Quo Warranto should be issued inasmuch as it cannot be said that there is violation of any statutory provision. In
support of such contention, the learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon a decision of Kerala High Court reported in Alex Beets Vs.
M.A. Urmese and Another, . Learned Advocate General has further contended that even assuming that the incumbent was not eligible under
G.O.Ms. No. 72, dated 19.3.1993, in view of the statutory provision now made, under which the incumbent is very much eligible, no writ of Quo
Warranto need be issued inasmuch as issuance of such a writ may prove to be futile as the Government has the power to re-appoint the very same
person under the statute holding the field. In support of such contention, the learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon a Full Bench
decision of the Delhi High Court reported in P.L. Lakhanpal Vs. A.N. Ray and Others, .
An examination of G.O.Ms. No. 72, dated 19.3.1993, clearly indicates that the Chairperson of the State Commission for Women is expected
to discharge certain public duties. Law is now well settled that in the absence of any statutory provision or statutory rule, appropriate executive
instructions can be issued even in the matters relating to service conditions in various public offices and other matters. It is also further well settled
that in the absence of any statutory provision or rule, the executive instructions are expected to be followed. In the above view of the matter, the
contention raised by the Advocate General that for violation of the executive instructions, no writ of Quo Warranto be issued by relying upon the
decision of the Kerala High Court cited above, may not prima facie be acceptable. However, in our considered opinion, it may not be necessary to
delve further into this aspect as, according to us, the other objection raised by the Advocate General appears to be on a much stronger footing.
It is no doubt true that when the appointment of Respondent No. 3 was made, such appointment was contrary to the executive instructions,
which had been notified in G.O.Ms. No. 72, dated 19.3.1993. However, at present, such executive instruction had been replaced by statutory
provision and under such statutory provision, there is no requirement that only a retired Judge would be eligible to be nominated as Chairperson of
the State Commission for Women. Since under the present statute, namely, Act 31 of 2008, the present incumbent is eligible to be reappointed,
issuance of Quo Warranto on the ground that she was not eligible to be appointed as per G.O.Ms. No. 72, dated 19.3.1993, would be an
exercise in futility inasmuch as the very same person after being removed from the office by virtue of issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto can be
reappointed by the State Government. As a matter of fact, in the counter affidavit of the second respondent it has been specifically stated that such
incumbent is eligible under the provisions of the statute and, therefore, she would be continuing in such post till she completes the period of three
years i.e., till January, 2010. This itself is a clear indication emanating from the State Government that there is no embargo for reappointment of
such person. Even if a writ of Quo Warranto is issued, it would become infructuous by reappointing such person. Thus, keeping in view such
specific stand of the Government and keeping in view the ratio of the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court, we do not think it is a fit case
where the high prerogative writ of Quo Warranto could be issued.
In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the averments and counter averments relating to functioning of Respondent No. 3 and the alleged motive
for the present petitioner for filing the writ petition need not be gone into.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.