RAJESH AWASTHI versus NAND LAL JAISWAL & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 19-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 O S.C.R. 883 
RAJESH AWASTHI 
v. 
NANO LAL JAISWAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7600 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 19, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Electncity Act, 2003: 
A 
B 
s. 85(5) - Selection of Chairperson of State Electricity c 
Regulatory 
Commission 
Selection 
Committee 
recommending to State Government two names asking the 
Government to ensure compliance of sub-s. (5) of s. 85 -
Held: Power conferred under sub-s. (5) of s. 85 of the Act has 
to be exercised by Selection Committee and not by the 
0 
Government - The question as to whether the persons who 
have been named in the panel have got any financial or other 
interest which is likely to affect prejudicially their functions as 
Chairperson, is a matter which depends upon the satisfaction 
of Selection Committee and that satisfaction has to be arrived 
at before recommending any person for appointment as 
E 
Chairperson to State Government - Selection Committee has 
given a complete go-by to that provision and entrusted that 
function to the State Government which is legally 
impermissible - State Government a/so, without application 
F 
of mind and overlooking that statutory provision, appointed 
the appellant - Jn the instant case, there has been total non-
compliance of the statutory provision by the Selection 
Committee which makes the decision making process 
vulnerable warranting interference by constitutional courts 
and, therefore, High Court is justified in holding that the 
G 
appointment is non est in law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Art. 226. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
883 
H 
--.,' 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2012] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Art. 226 - Writ of quo warra~to - Held: A citizen can claim 
a writ of quo warranto and he stands in the position of a relater 
- A writ of quo warranto will lie when the appointment is made 
contrary to the statutory provisions - In the instant case, the 
question as to whether, being Vice-President of the private 
B company, the appellant had any financial or other interest 
which would prejudicially affect his function as Chairperson 
was an, issue which the Selection Committee ought to have 
considered - The statutory requirements as prescribed in 
sub-r. (3) of r. 3of1999 Rules were also not followed over and 
c above, the non-compliance of sub-s. (5) of s. 85 of the Act -
The expression "before recommending any person" in sub s. 
(5) of s. 85 clearly indicates that it is a mandatory requirement 
to be followed. by the Selection Committee before 
recommending the name of any person for the post of 
0 
Chairperson - The expression "before" clearly indicates the 
intention of the Legislature - Non-comp/ian.ce of sub-s. (5) of 
s. 85 ot the Act is not a procedural violation, and vitiates the 
entire selection process - High Court has rightly held that the 
appointment of appellant was in clear violation of sub-s. (5) 
of s.85 of the Act and, consequently, he has no authority to 
E hold the post of Chairperson of the Commission - Electricity 
Act, 2003 :- s.85(5) - U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission 
(Appointment and Conditions of Service of the Chairperson 
and Members) Rules, 1999 - r.3(3) - Locus Standi. 
F 
Consequent upon the post of Chairperson, U.P. 
State Electricity Regulatory Commission falling vacant, 
applications were invited from eligible candidates and out 
of 30 applicants, the Selection Committee constituted u/ 
s 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003, selected two persons on 
G merit, including the appellant and forwarded their names 
to the State Government with an asterisk against the 
name of the appellant that if he was appointed, the 
Government would first ensure the compliance of sub-s. 
(5) of s.85 of the Act. The Government appointed the 
H appellant as Chairperson of the Commission on 
RAJESH AWASTHI v. NANO LAL JAISWAL & ORS. 885 
29.12.2008, on which date the appellant sent a letter to the 
A 
State Government stating that he had resigned from his 
previous assignment in the private sector on 27.12.2008. 
The respondent, who was the General Secretary, Jal 
Vidyut Unit, filed a writ petition before the High Court 
seeking a writ of quo warranto challenging the 
B 
appointment of the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that 
the Selection Committee did not follow the provisions of 
sub-s. (5) of s.85 of the Act and the appellant could not 
have been selected as he was working with a private 
sector company and had financial and other interests in c 
that company

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.