P. Venkatesh Vs. State of Karnataka

P. Venkatesh vs State of Karnataka

Disposition Writ petition rejected Court Karnataka Decided May 31, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/379477

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/379477
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Shivaraj Patil, J.
Decided On: May 31, 1993
Case Number: W.P. No. 11403 of 1993
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Writ petition rejected

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226 - Deputy Chief Minister : no reference in Constitution - Member in Council of Ministers - No conferment of powers of Chief Minister. ;It is true that nowhere in the Constitution of India there is any reference to the post of a Deputy Chief Minister. But, the third respondent is a...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Writ petition rejected
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P. Venkatesh

Advocate Party in person

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: ILR1993KAR2226; 1994(3)KarLJ376

Excerpt

constitution of india - article 226 - deputy chief minister : no reference in constitution - member in council of ministers - no conferment of powers of chief minister. ;it is true that nowhere in the constitution of india there is any reference to the post of a deputy chief minister. but, the third respondent is also a member in the council of ministers though he has been described as deputy chief minister. however, this description itself does not confer on him the powers of the chief minister. the oath prescribed for a minister contains two parts : one is descriptive and the other contains the substantial part. - karnataka land reforms act, 1961.[k.a. no. 10/1962].section 48a: [n.k. patil, j] grant of occupancy rights petitioner, in spite of being given sufficient opportunity, has failed to substantiate his defence land tribunal has proceeded on the basis of relevant clinching material available on its file and registered occupancy rights in favour of deceased tenant represented by respondents - held, there is no illegality. it is not violative of principles of natural justice. further, the writ petition challenging order passed has been filed after a delay of more than 10 years and the delay has not been properly explained. writ petition dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. - 1 is just a minister like other members of the council of ministers though he has been described as deputy prime minister but the description of him as deputy prime minister does not confer on him any powers of the prime minister, along with his other submissions, we think the first contention raised by the petitioner has no force......there is any reference to the post of a deputy chief minister. but, the third respondent is also a member in the council of ministers though he has been described as deputy chief minister. however, this description itself does not confer on him the powers of the chief minister. the oath prescribed for a minister contains two parts: one is descriptive and the other contains the substantial part.4. the supreme court in the case of k.m. sharma v. shri devi lal and ors., : [1990]1scr1 , had occasion to consider similar question and has stated thus in para-5 and 6 of the decision:'this court in the reported decision said: 'in this case, as we have already noted, the essential, requirement of article 173 read with form vii-a was that the person taking the oath or making the affirmation would bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of india. the words which precede this portion are merely descriptive of the person and of his nomination as a candidate'. in view of the clear statement made by the learned attorney-general that respondent no. 1 is just a minister like other members of the council of ministers though he has been described as deputy prime minister but the description of him as deputy prime minister does not confer on him any powers of the prime minister, along with his other submissions, we think the first contention raised by the petitioner has no force. so far as the second contention is concerned, the petitioner himself does not press it'. 5. in view of what is stated above, i do not find any merit in this writ petition to entertain it. hence, the writ petition is rejected at the stage of preliminary hearing itself.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Shivaraj Patil, J.

1. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition has sought for a declaration that the appointment of the third respondent as the Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka is ultravires of the Constitution and he has further sought for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to remove the third respondent from the office of the Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka.

2. The petitioner (party in person) contended that under the Constitution of India, nowhere there is a provision made for appointment of Deputy Chief Minister of a State; such an appointment results in heavy burden to the public exchequer and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have acted without authority of law in appointing the third respondent as the Deputy Chief Minister.

3. It is true that nowhere in the Constitution of India there is any reference to the post of a Deputy Chief Minister. But, the third respondent is also a member in the Council of Ministers though he has been described as Deputy Chief Minister. However, this description itself does not confer on him the powers of the Chief Minister. The oath prescribed for a Minister contains two parts: one is descriptive and the other contains the substantial part.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of K.M. SHARMA v. SHRI DEVI LAL AND ORS., : [1990]1SCR1 , had occasion to consider similar question and has stated thus in para-5 and 6 of the Decision:

'This Court in the reported decision said:

'In this case, as we have already noted, the essential, requirement of Article 173 read with Form VII-A was that the person taking the oath or making the affirmation would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. The words which precede this portion are merely descriptive of the person and of his nomination as a candidate'. In view of the clear statement made by the learned Attorney-General that respondent No. 1 is just a Minister like other members of the Council of Ministers though he has been described as Deputy Prime Minister but the description of him as Deputy Prime Minister does not confer on him any powers of the Prime Minister, along with his other submissions, we think the first contention raised by the petitioner has no force. So far as the second contention is concerned, the petitioner himself does not press it'.

5. In view of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition to entertain it. Hence, the Writ Petition is rejected at the stage of Preliminary Hearing itself.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1993 Same Parties P. Venkatesh vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Constitution Same Judge Shivaraj Patil, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Constitution