DEEPAK GANPATRAO SALUNKE Vs. GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has contended that he is a social worker and Councillor of Kopargaon Municipal Council (District Ahmednagar ). The elections for 12th Parliament were held in February-March, 1998. The respondent No. 6 is the member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Maharashtra and the Home port folio is allotted to him. He was given oath as Deputy Chief Minister. Writ Petition No. 1507/1995 was filed before this Bench wherein it was urged that the Constitution of India only provides for the post of Chief Minister and Ministers and does not provide for the post of Deputy Chief Minister. There is no format of oath for the post of Deputy Chief Minister in the 3rd Schedule of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the appointment and assumption of oath by the respondent No. 6 be nullified by the writ of co-warranto. In the said writ petition, the present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 6 were the parties and a submission was made by the respondent No. 7, Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra, that the description of the respondent No. 6 as Deputy Chief Minister is only descriptive and for all purposes, he is Minister like other members of the Council of Ministers. The description occurring as Deputy Chief Minister does not confer on him any power of the Chief Minister. On the basis of this statement, the writ petition was disposed of.

(2.) THE petitioner has contended that the respondent No. 6 has no authority to appoint a Cabinet Minister or a State Minister on the Council of Ministers. That is the authority of Chief Minister alone as per Article 163 (1) of the Constitution of India. In spite of all these circumstances, the respondent No. 6 poses himself in public to be the Deputy Chief Minister and as the one having authority at par with the Chief Minister. The respondent No. 6 claims that he has the authority to the extent of appointing a Minister or substitute Deputy Chief Minister in the Council of Ministers. These activities of the respondent are contemptuous to the statements made before this Court, in the said writ petition.

(3.) DURING the 12th Parliamentary elections, the respondent No. 6 posed himself as Deputy Chief Minister having the powers of Chief Minister and that amounted to the commission of offences covered by Chapter IX-A of Indian Penal Code. These activities also amount to corrupt practices within the meaning of section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. On account of this, the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 ought to have taken action against respondent No. 6. The petitioner approached the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and 7, with a request, to take action against the respondent No. 6. But in spite of repeated reminders, there was no response from the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Hence, the petitioner has filed this criminal writ petition.