Gadepally Kameshwar Rao Vs. Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, Hon'ble Chief Minister, Govt. of A.P. and others (14.03.2001 - APHC) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution - unveiling of statue - article 164 of constitution of india - respondent chief minister (cm) unveiled statue of police officer who was his close relative - petitioner contended that respondent guilty of committing favoritism - violated oath of office and liable to resign from post of cm - oath was not violated by unveiling statue of any person - writ petition not maintainable as court has no jurisdiction to proceed against cm. - all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults committed by him prior to application for eviction can never be considered wilful, if he were to deposit all arrears of rent due within fifteen days under rule 5(6) read with sub-section (1) of section 11. the object and effect of section 11 and sub-rules (1) to (5) to rule 5, the former being for protection of landlord during pendency of eviction proceedings and the later being for protection of tenant to avoid any liability for eviction on ground of wilful default. consequently, while taking recourse to section 8 by tenant is optional, once that option is exercised, compliance with sub-rules (1) to (5) of rule 5 becomes mandatory in the sense that any non-compliance with prescribed procedure will positively indicate the wilful nature of default committed in paying or tendering rent as prescribed. while deposit of rent in terms of provisions of act and the rules amounts to valid tender of rent to landlord, the failure to comply with rule 5 (3) requiring delivery of a copy of the challan for deposit of rent in office of controller or appellate authority, as the case may be, so as to enable controller or appellate authority to cause maintenance of proper accounts under sub-rule (5) and give notice of deposit to person amounts to wilful default in making valid payment or lawful tender of the rent by the tenant to the landlord. thus, where a tenant obtains an order to deposit rent, same shall be deposited at least by the last day of the month following that for which rent is payable and rent challan shall be delivered in the office of controller within a reasonable time so that rent controller can take necessary action for service of notice of deposit under sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of the rules within seven days of such delivery. in the absence of compliance in so depositing rent and delivering challan in the office of controller, tenant shall be deemed to have committed wilful default. - order satva brata sinha, cj 1. before we proceed to consider the merits of the matter, we would like to refer to one disturbing factor.ordersatva brata sinha, cj 1. before we proceed to consider the merits of the matter, we would like to refer to one disturbing factor.2. the petitioner herein appears to have sent a fax to the prime minister of india asking for providing security to him on the ground that this application having been filed against the chief minister of the state his security is at stake. unfortunately, despite the fact that the matter is pending before this court, a copy of the fax has been sent to one of us (chief justice). when confronted with the said fax and when directed to explain as to why a proceeding under the contempt of courts act shall not be initiated against him, the petitioner tendered his unqualified apology and states that the same had been sent bone fide and not with a view to prejudice the mind of this court. although no proceedings under the contempt of courts act are being initiated, the petitioner herein is warned that if in future any such action is brought to the notice of this court, stringent measures shall be taken against him. let the fax copy sent be placed on record.3. heard the petitioner in person.4. the petitioner in this application has inter alia prayed for issuance of a direction of this court directing the first respondent herein to tender his resignation forthwith for gross and flagrant violation of oath of office taken by him and administered by the second respondent and abuse of the powers in installation of statue of late umesh chandra showing favouritism, 5. the only allegation made in the application is that the aforementioned late umesh chandra, a police officer, whose statue has been unveiled by the first respondent herein at sanjeevareddy colony, happened to be a relative of the first respondent.6. mr. kameshwar rao, the petitioner who appears in person, is stated to be a freedom fighter. according to him, by reason of such unveiling of statue the chief minister has shown favouritism to one of his kith and kin. he contends that by reason of the said act, he has violated the oath of office taken by him.7. form of oaths as contained in clause (v) of iii schedule appended to the constitution of india reads:'form of oath of office for a minister for a state: i, a, b, do swear in the name of god/ solemnly affirm that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of india as by law established, that i will uphold that sovereignty and integrity of india, that i will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a minister for the state of .....and that iwill do right to all manner of people in accordance with the constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.'8. in terms of article 164 of the constitution of india, the chief minister is to be appointed by the governor and other ministers are to be appointed by him on the advice of the chief minister. the ministers are to hold the office during the pleasure of the governor.9. in terms of clause (3) ofarticle 164 of the constitution of india, a minister before entering upon office is required to be administered oath of office and secrecy by the governor in terms of the aforementioned form.10. unveiling of a portrait of a police officer by the chief minister, be his relative or otherwise, in our considered opinion, does not violate the oath of office and secrecy as provided for in iii schedule appended to the constitution of india. in any event, having regard to the express provisions contained in article 164 of the constitution, this court has no jurisdiction to direct the chief minister of the state to tender his resignation. this application is preposterous in nature and is dismissed accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

Satva Brata Sinha, CJ

1. Before we proceed to consider the merits of the matter, we would like to refer to one disturbing factor.

2. The petitioner herein appears to have sent a fax to the Prime Minister of India asking for providing security to him on the ground that this application having been filed against the Chief Minister of the State his security is at stake. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the matter is pending before this Court, a copy of the fax has been sent to one of us (Chief Justice). When confronted with the said fax and when directed to explain as to why a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act shall not be initiated against him, the petitioner tendered his unqualified apology and states that the same had been sent bone fide and not with a view to prejudice the mind of this Court. Although no proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are being initiated, the petitioner herein is warned that if in future any such action is brought to the notice of this Court, stringent measures shall be taken against him. Let the fax copy sent be placed on record.

3. Heard the petitioner in person.

4. The petitioner in this application has inter alia prayed for issuance of a direction of this Court directing the first respondent herein to tender his resignation forthwith for gross and flagrant violation of oath of office taken by him and administered by the second respondent and abuse of the powers in installation of statue of late Umesh Chandra showing favouritism,

5. The only allegation made in the application is that the aforementioned late Umesh Chandra, a police officer, whose statue has been unveiled by the first respondent herein at Sanjeevareddy Colony, happened to be a relative of the first respondent.

6. Mr. Kameshwar Rao, the petitioner who appears in person, is stated to be a freedom fighter. According to him, by reason of such unveiling of statue the Chief Minister has shown favouritism to one of his kith and kin. He contends that by reason of the said act, he has violated the oath of office taken by him.

7. Form of oaths as contained in clause (v) of III Schedule appended to the Constitution of India reads:

'Form of oath of office for a Minister for a State:

I, A, B, do swear in the name of God/ Solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold that sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the State of .....and that Iwill do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.'

8. In terms of Article 164 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Minister is to be appointed by the Governor and other Ministers are to be appointed by him on the advice of the Chief Minister. The Ministers are to hold the office during the pleasure of the Governor.

9. In terms of clause (3) ofArticle 164 of the Constitution of India, a Minister before entering upon office is required to be administered oath of office and secrecy by the Governor in terms of the aforementioned form.

10. Unveiling of a portrait of a police officer by the Chief Minister, be his relative or otherwise, in our considered opinion, does not violate the oath of office and secrecy as provided for in III Schedule appended to the Constitution of India. In any event, having regard to the express provisions contained in Article 164 of the Constitution, this Court has no jurisdiction to direct the Chief Minister of the State to tender his resignation. This application is preposterous in nature and is dismissed accordingly.