JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition was submitted before me at about 11 P.M. on 3-12-1989 at my residence. I had advised the petitioner in person to hand over two copies of the same to Mr. G.C. Chatterjee, Government Advocate and had directed the Registry of this Court to place this writ petition before me in court for hearing at 10.30 A.M. on 4-12-1989. 2. Mr. V.P. Singh has also filed an application through his counsel Miss Kamlesh Mahendru for being impleaded as a party to the writ petition. 3. In the petition, the petitioner has stated that Shri Harideo Joshi was the Governor of Assam and that the petitioner has come to learn from reliable sources i.e. Doordarshan and Aakashwani that Shri Harideo Joshi has been elected the leader of the Congress (I) party in the State of Rajasthan. Since Shri Shiv Charan Mathur, who was the Chief Minister had resigned, the Governor of Rajasthan called upon Shri Harideo Joshi to take oath on 3-12-1989 but the oath could not be administered and it was postponed yesterday. It has further been submitted that the resignation of Shri Harideo Joshi as the Governor of Assam has been accepted by the President and he still continues as the Governor of Assam and therefore, should not have attended the meeting of the Congress (I) Party and got himself elected as its leader. He has further submitted that the Governor of Rajasthan ought not to have called upon Shri Harideo Joshi to take oath as the Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan. In the writ petition it has been prayed that a direction to the Governor of Rajasthan be issued not to administer oath to Shri Harideo Joshi for the office of Chief Minister, State of Rajasthan. 4. My attention has been drawn to Article 51-A of the Constitution of India describing the fundamental duties of citizens of India which provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to abide by the Constitution and also to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constancy rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. It has further been submitted that the Governor of Rajasthan should have obeyed the mandate of the Constitution of India and should not have called upon shri Harideo Joshi to take oath as he continues to be the Governor of Assam. 5. My attention has also been drawn to Articles 156 of the Constitution of India which runs as under:- "156. Term of office of Governor-(1) The Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. (2) The Governor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office. (3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this article, a Governor shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office : Provided that a Governor shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that mere tendering resignation is not sufficient. The Governor shall continue to hold office until his successor enters upon its office and since successor of Shri Harideo Joshi had not been appointed till yesterday, he should not have been called upon to take oath of office of the Chief Minister. 7. My attention was also drawn to Article 191 of the Constitution of India and it has been asserted that since Shri Harideo Joshi was holding office of profit being the Governor of the State of Assam, he could not be called upon by the Governor of Rajasthan to take oath as Chief Minister of Rajasthan. Reliance has been placed on Aran Kumar v. Union of India and others ( 1981 WLN 290 ) and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India ( AIR 1977 SC 1361 ). On the basis of the authority and the observations made in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (supra), it was submitted that since in the last general elections held in 1989, Congress (I) party had not been able to get even one member for the House of People elected from the State of Rajasthan, the Congress (I) party has lost the confidence of the general public of the State of Rajasthan and therefore, the Governor of Rajasthan should not have called upon Shri Harideo Joshi to take oath as Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan. It has further been submitted that the Congress (I) party has lost the right to govern the State of Rajasthan against the will of the people particularly in view of the fact that the term of legislative assembly in Rajasthan is likely to end within a couple of months or so. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for Shri Hari Deo Joshi, respondent No. 2, has drawn my attention to Article 361 of the Constitution of India and submitted that no writ can be issued against the Governor with regard to exercise and performance of the powers and duties of office as a Governor. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Biman Chandra Bose v. Dr. H. C. Mukherjee (AIR 1952 Calcutta 799). It has further been submitted by learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 that it was not necessary for the President of India to have accepted the resignation of Shri Harideo Joshi before Mr. Joshi treat himself as relieved from office of the Governor of Assam. The argument was that as soon as the resignation was tendered, he being a constitutional authority, his resignation will come into effect and he will no more continue as Governor of Assam. In ibis connection, reliance has been placed on Union of India v. Gopai Chandra Misra and others ( AIR 1978 SC 694 ) , particularly para 51, wherein their lordships while considering proviso (a) to Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India, which is para materia in the same terms as Article 156(2) of the Constitution, held as under:- "In the case of a judge of a High Court, who is a constitutional functionary and under Proviso (a) to Article 217 (1) has a unilateral right or privilege to resign his office, his resignation becomes effective and tenure terminated on the date from which he, of his own volition, chooses to quit office If in terms of the writing under his hand addressed to the President, he resigns in presenti the resignation terminates his office-tenure forthwith, and cannot therefore be withdrawn or revoked thereafter." 9. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has further submitted that even the petitioner has admitted that the resignation has been tendered by Shri Harideo Joshi, to the President of India, and that it is also not denied that the same has been accepted by the President of India as appeared in the news media T.V. and newspapers. It has also appeared in Press that the Chief Justice of Assam has been requested to take over as Governor of Assam. 10. Shri M.I. Khan, Additional Advocate General, informed to this Court that the new incumbent for the post of Governor of Assam was expected to take oath at 12 O'clock today. My attention has also been drawn by Mr. M.R. Calla, learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 to Har Govind Pant v. Chancellor, University of Rajasthan (1978 R.L.W. 78) , Madan Murari Veruia v. Choudhary Charan Singh and another ( AIR 1980 Cal. 95 ) and Jogendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam and others (AIR 1982 Gauhati 25). 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. 12. As regards the submission of Mr. C.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, that Congress (J) party has no right to continue to govern the State of Rajasthan and the President of India should impose President's Rule and elections should be held I am afraid it is neither the domain of this Court nor is it subject matter of this writ petition. No orders have been passed nor even recommendations have been made so far under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this argument is rejected at the outset. 13. Mr. C.K. Garg. learned counsel for the petitioner, has also submitted a copy of the telegram which has been addressed to the President of India yesterday i.e. on 3-12-1989. He need not waste his energy on this point, rather he should preserve it while approaching the President of India on this count. Similarly, the submissions with regard to Article 51A of the Constitution of India are of no avail as far as disposal of the present writ petition is concerned. Similarly, the submission that the Acting Chief Justice of Assam should not have been appointed as Governor of Assam in place of Shri Harideo Joshi, is of no avail in view of the decision in Arun Kumar's case (supra), cited by Mr. Similarly, the submission that the Acting Chief Justice of Assam should not have been appointed as Governor of Assam in place of Shri Harideo Joshi, is of no avail in view of the decision in Arun Kumar's case (supra), cited by Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, himself. 14. Article 156 of the Constitution of India has been reproduced earlier. This Article provides that the Governor shall hold office at the pleasure of the President. Article 156(2) provides that the Governor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office. It is not disputed that Shri Harideo Joshi had submitted his resignation in writing, addressed to the President of India. Thereafter, sub clause (3) of Article loo of the Constitution of India starts with a non-obstante clause 'subject to the foregoing provisions of this Article, a Governor shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office' meaning thereby that ordinarily, a Governor shall hold office for a term of five years unless otherwise vacated and one of the modes is by way of resignation. There is a proviso to Article 156 (3) of the Constitution that the Governor shall notwithstanding expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon the office. According to Mr. M.R. Calla, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2, this proviso governs only sub-clause (3) of Article 156 of the Constitution i.e. if the fixed term of five years for which a Governor is appointed, expires, he will continue to hold office until his successor enters upon the office. This has nothing to do with the case when the Governor resigns, where as Mr. C.K. Garg. learned counsel for the petitioner, has also very emphatically submitted that this proviso governs the whole Article and has submitted that there are no interrgunm between one Governor and his successor. 15. Article 217 of the Constitution which deals with the appointment of a High Court Judge also provides that a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office. 15. Article 217 of the Constitution which deals with the appointment of a High Court Judge also provides that a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office. Proviso (a) to sub Article (I) of Article 217 of the Constitution came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Gopal Chandra's case (supra) wherein it has been observed that a Judge of a High Court who is a constitutional functionary and under proviso (a) to Article 217(1) has a unilateral right or privilege to resign his office his resignation becomes effective and tenure terminated on the date from which he, of his own volition, chooses to quit office. In the present case, it is not disputed that Shri Harideo Joshi had tendered his regignation to the President of India and the same has been accepted. To test the argument of Shri Grig, learned counsel for the petitioner, let us suppose vacancies caused by death then how proviso to Article 156 (3) will be applicable. How can in that event he could continue to hold the post till his successor enters upon his office. 16. The only point for consideration before me is as to whether Shri Harideo Joshi after having tendered his resignation and the same having been accepted, could take oath as Chief Minister of Rajasthan. The moment resignation of Shri Joshi was accepted by the President, he cannot be said to bold the office of profit under Article 191 of the Constitution and it does not stand in the way of Shri Joshi as an obstruction to take oath as the Chief Minister of Rajasthan The fact that Shri Joshi was elected leader of the Congress (1) Party, even before his resignation was accepted, is of no avail. It is also immaterial whether Shri Joshi attended the party meeting or he was present in the meeting at the time when he was elected as leader of the Congress (I) party. The Court cannot go into all these facts, because no opportunity was given to Shri Harideo Joshi to file reply of petition and these are all questions of fact and unless reply is filed, no finding can be given. These are purely political and party matters. The court cannot, in the circumstances, go into the question of its propriety. The Court cannot go into all these facts, because no opportunity was given to Shri Harideo Joshi to file reply of petition and these are all questions of fact and unless reply is filed, no finding can be given. These are purely political and party matters. The court cannot, in the circumstances, go into the question of its propriety. That would be dangerous exercise for the court because by doing so, the court would enter the 'Political thicket' which if must avoid. 17. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India ( AIR 1977 SC 1361 ) Justice Chandrachud as he then was observed that by dissolution of assemblies of nine States, the members lost their right to draw salary, yet the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that the injury to the alleged fundamental right of the petitioner is too indirect and remote. These observations apply with double force to the present writ petition. It is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. 18. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in this writ petition and there appears no need for issuing direction to the Governor of Rajasthan not to administer oath to Shri Hari Deo Joshi. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******