JUSTICE K.P. MOHAPATRA versus SRI RAM CHANDRA NAYAK AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 166 · Decided: 09-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JUSTICE K.P. MOHAPATRA 
v. 
SRI RAM CHANDRA NAY AK AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 9, 2002 
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995-Section 3(1)-Appointment 
of Lokpal.-Chief Minister proposing three names for office of Lokpal to Chief 
Justice of High Court and Leader of Opposition-Chief Justice agreeing for 
C appointment of retired High Court Judge while Leader of Opposition proposing 
another name-Government appointing retired High Court Judge as Lokpal- · 
High Court setting aside the appointment as there was no effective consultation 
with the Leader of Opposition-On appeal held. High Court erred in selling 
aside the appointment since the consultation with Chief Justice is mandatory 
D and his opinion would have primacy-Nature of consultation with the Leader 
of Opposition is only to apprise him about the proposal of selecting a person 
to the post and take his view and the opinion rendered by him is not binding 
on the Government. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'Consultation '-Meaning of in the context of Section 3 of the Orissa 
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995. 
For appointment of Lok pal, Chief Minister of Orissa wrote a letter 
to Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and Leader of Opposition that the 
F three persons named therein were under consideration for the Office of 
Lokpal and requested them to convey their views. Chief Justice replied 
that among them, the appellant-retired Judge of Orissa High Court may 
be appointed as Lokpal. Leader of Opposition opined that another person 
named therein who was working as Chairman of State Administrative 
G Tribunal could be considered for the office. Thereafter, Government of 
Orissa appointed the appellant as Lokpal. Respondent filed Public Interest 
Litigation. High Court set aside the appointment of appellant as Loli.pa! 
on the ground that there was no effective consultation with the Leader of 
the Opposition. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
166 
• 
JUSTICE K.P. MOHAPATRA v. R.C. NAY AK 
167 
Appellant contended that the suggestion made by Chief Justice of A 
High Court would have primacy; the consultation with the Leader of 
Opposition would not mean that Government should concur with the same 
or should postpone the appointment of Lokpal and consider the names 
suggested by the Leader of Opposition; the Leader of Opposition has not 
made any grievance against appointment of appellant nor has stated that B 
he is unfit for the appointment and merely because he has suggested 
another name, it cannot be said that Government should wait ana discuss 
the name suggested by him. 
State contended that the appellant was having essential qualification 
and qualities; and that the Leader of Opposition did not state that the C 
persons sponsored by the Government were devoid of essential qualities 
or disagreed with the names proposed by the Government. 
As none appearetJ for the respondent, Amicus Curiae was appointed 
who submitted that the word 'consultation' has to be interpreted in the 
con.text of the post or public office and the object and purpose for which D 
the provision for consultation is made and the Government is required to 
appoint a sitting or retired Judge of Supreme Court or High Court as 
Lokpal under the Act, thus the consultation by Government with Chief 
Justice is a sine qua 11011. As against this, consultation with the Leader of 
Opposition may be for information so that if there is something against 
the proposed name, he can draw the attention but the law does not require E 
that the Leader of Opposition can propose a name for being appointed as 
Lokpal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The word 'consultation' used in Section 3(1) proviso (a) F 
of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 requires that consultation 
with the Chief Justice of High Court is must or sine qua non. For such 
appointment, Chief Justice of High Court would be the best person for 
proposing and suggesting such person for being appointed as Lokpal. His 
opinion would be totally independent and he would be in a position to find G 
out who is most or more suitable for the said office. Jn this context, 
primacy is required to be given to the opinion of Chief Justice of the High 
Court. Proviso (a) provides that Leader of Opposition, if there is any, is 
also required to be consulted. Therefore, if there is no Leader of 
Opposition, consultation is not required which would indicate nature of 
H 
such consultation and which is to appr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.