S. C. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Sri Har Saran Varma challenges the induction of Sri Mufti Mohammad Saeed into the Central Cabinet. The ground of challenge is that he is not a member of either House of Parliament and is, therefore, disqualified for becoming a member of the Council of Ministers. In support of his plea he has placed reliance upon Arts. 84, 99 and 104 of the Constitution and S. 36 of the Representation of the People Act. ( 2 ) THE answer to the petitioners contention is to be found in Arts. 74 and 75 of the Constitution. Article 74 (1) provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President. This article does not prescribe any qualification for becoming a member of the Council off Ministers. It does not prescribe that a member of the Council of Ministers must be a member of one of the Houses of Parliament. Thus, there is no bar to a person who is not a member of one of the Houses of Parliament becoming a member of the Council of Ministers. This is the position so far as induction into the Council of Ministers is Concerned. ( 3 ) THEN comes Art. 75 (5) which says that a Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of either House of Parliament, shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister. In view of this provision a Minister who fails to acquire membership of either House of Parliament for six months from the date of his induction into the Council of Ministers ceases to be a Minister on the expiry of the said period of six months. But the disqualification comes only after the expiry of the period of six months mentioned herein. In Para 5 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that Sri Mufti Mohammad Saeed was appointed a Minister on 12-5-1986. From this date the period of six months has not expired. Accordingly, it cannot be said that Sri Saeed is holding the office of Minister illegally. Therefore, writ of quo warranto prayed for cannot be issued. ( 4 ) PETITIONERs reliance on Arts. 84 and 99 is misconceived. From this date the period of six months has not expired. Accordingly, it cannot be said that Sri Saeed is holding the office of Minister illegally. Therefore, writ of quo warranto prayed for cannot be issued. ( 4 ) PETITIONERs reliance on Arts. 84 and 99 is misconceived. Both these articles occur in Chapter II of the Constitution which bears the heading "parliament" and deal with members of the Parliament or with candidates for membership of the Parliament, Art. 84 (a) provides that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in Parliament unless he is a citizen of India and makes and subscribes before some officer authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule. Third Schedule prescribes forms of oaths which a person is required to make ac subscribe to before entering upon an office or before becoming a candidate for an office. Form IIIA is the pro forma of the oath which a candidate to the membership of either House of Parliament is required to subscribe to. This form of oath Sri Saeed will be required to subscribe to when he seeks election either to the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. At this stage it has no relevance. ( 5 ) ARTICLE 99 requires a member of either House of Parliament to subscribe to the oath prescribed in the same Third Schedule to the Constitution before taking his seat in the House. This form of oath is prescribed in proforma IIIB. This stage is reached after the candidate has been elected or nominated by the President, as the case may be. This stage will also be reached when Sri Saeed has been elected to either House of Parliament or nominated to the Rajya Sabha. At this stage ft has no relevance. ( 6 ) THE petitioner, however, submits that as a Minister, Sri Saeed will have to sit in the Parliament, as under Art. 75 (3) the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People, but without subscribing to the oath referred to in Art. 99 he cannot have a seat in Parliament. ( 6 ) THE petitioner, however, submits that as a Minister, Sri Saeed will have to sit in the Parliament, as under Art. 75 (3) the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People, but without subscribing to the oath referred to in Art. 99 he cannot have a seat in Parliament. Without having a seat in the Parliament, the petitioner contends, Sri Saeed cannot effectively discharge the duties of his office, particularly the duty assigned under Art. 75 (3 ). The submission is devoid of merit. Sri Saeed will sit in the Parliament not as a member of Parliament but as a member of the Council of Ministers discharging constitutional obligation under Art. 75 (3 ). The term "before taking his seat" occurring in Art. 99 signifies "before taking his seat as a member of the House". ( 7 ) IN taking the above view we are fortified by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in re : Har Sharan Varma v. Tribhuvan Narain Singh, AIR 1971 SC 1331 . In this case the present petitioner had challenged the appointment of Sri Singh as Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that he was not a member of either House of the State Legislature. With necessary modifications Art. 164 (4) which is applicable to the States, is identical in language to Art. 75 (5) relating to the Centre. Their Lordships negatived the plea. To the same effect is the decision of their Lordships in Har Sharan Varma v. State of U. P. , (1985) 2 SCC 48 . ( 8 ) THE view taken by us finds support from the decision of Honble S. S. Dhavan, J. (as he then was) in re : Har Sharan Varma v. Chandra Bhan Gupta, AIR 1962 All 301 . In this case this very petitioner had challenged the appointment of Sri Gupta as Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh and also his nomination to the Legislative Council. ( 9 ) THE petitioner refers to the debates in the Constituent Assembly. It appears that at one stage one of the members of the Assembly, Sri Mohd. Tahir suggested that no person should be appointed a Minister unless at the time of his appointment he is an elected member of the House. However, the suggestion was not accepted. ( 9 ) THE petitioner refers to the debates in the Constituent Assembly. It appears that at one stage one of the members of the Assembly, Sri Mohd. Tahir suggested that no person should be appointed a Minister unless at the time of his appointment he is an elected member of the House. However, the suggestion was not accepted. ( 10 ) RELIANCE placed on Art. 104 is also misconceived. The penalty of Rs. 500/- per day is incurred when a person who has not subscribed to the oath referred to in Art. 99 "sits or votes as a member of either House of Parliament. " The penalty is not incurred when a person sits in the House as a member of the council of Ministers in order to discharge the Constitutional obligation cast under, Art. 75 (3 ). ( 11 ) REPRESENTATION of the People Act deals with election of Peoples representation to Parliament and the State Legislatures. Since Sri Saeed has not been elected to either House of Parliament, this Act is not at all attracted. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.