LexSARWAN SINGH LAMBA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
SARW AN SINGH LAMBA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
MAY 12, 1995
[A.M. AHMADI, 0, J.S. VERMA, P.B. SAWANT,
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]
Administrative Tiibztnals Act 1985-S.6(7)-Appointments of Members
of Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal-Appointments approved
A
B
by Chief Justice of India prior to communication to State Govemment of C
constitution of Selection Committe~Held, appointments valid; approval
granted by Chief Justice of India cannot be set at naught.
Administrative Law-Malice in /aw-Appointment of Vice-Chainnan
of Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal-Chief Secretary forward-
ing file proposing his name to Chief Minister without comment-Name of D
Chief Secretary proposed by Chief Minister and approved by Law Secretary
and Chief Justice of High Court-Held, appointment neither fraudulent nor
vitiated; merely forwarding file not to be construed as influencing
decision-Constitution of India, Article 166(3)-Ru/es of Business.
E
Administrative Tribunals Act 1985-S.6(7) as amended by A!;t 51 of
1987-Appointments of Chainnan, Vice-Chainnan and Members. of Ad-
ministrative Tribunal-Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar's Case directing
setting up of High Powered Selection Committe~Amendment however
providing only for appointment in consultation with Chief Justice of
India-Whether direction mandatory and amendment contrary thereto in-
F
valid-Held, the direction was merely advisory; further held, since govemment
has set up selection committees, question of validity academic-Constitution
of India, Article 141.
Administrative Law-Natural Justic~hallenge to appointments of G
Vice Chainnan and members of Madhya Pradesh State Administrative
Tribunal-High Court pernsing files after conclusion of hearing in the absence
of appointees-High Court drawing adverse inference against appoin-
tees-Held, violative of natural justic~onstitution of India, Article 226.
Public Interest Litigation-Locus Standi-l'etitioner~ apprehending that H
427
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Tribunal may vacate stay gramed earlier of their repauiation approaching
High Cowt questioning composition of Tribunal-ffe/d : petition motivated
to derive personal benefit and paralyse working of T1ibunal; exemplary costs
awarded-Costs.
B
In S.P.Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, [1987) 1 SCC 124 ('S.P.
Sampath Kumar I'), this Court gave certain directions to the Union of
India to introduce legislative changes to cure the defects in the procedure
for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the State
and Central Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Administra-
tive Tribunals Act, 1985 ('Act'). While Ranganath Misra J. suggested that
C where the selection was not of a sitting or retired High Court judge, it
should be by a high powered committed chaired by a sitting Supreme
Court Judge, Bhagwati CJI suggested a further alternative of prior con-
sultation with the Chief Justice of India. In a snbsequent Order in S.P.
Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, [1987) Supp. SCC 734 ('S.P. Sampath
D Kumar II'), this Court opined that in case of recruitment to the Central
Administrative Tribunal, the committee was to be headed by a sitting
Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India and for
recruitment to the State Administrative Tribunals the committee was to
be headed by a sitting High Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of
the concerned High Court. Thereafter by amendment Act No. 51 of 1987,
E S.6(7) of the Act was substituted to provide for prior consultation with the
Chief Justice of India in the matter of appointments of Chairman, Vice-
Chairman and members of the Tribunals.
The Government of India on April 15, 1991 appointed a Selection
F Committee comprising the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief
Secretary and the Law Secretary for appointments to the respective State
Tribunals but communicated this to the State Government only by letter
dated April 19, 1991. In the meanwhile the appointments of SSL, NNV,
RMR and GSP as members of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative
Tribunal ('Tribunal'), were approved by the Chief Justice of India on April
G 18, 1991. In the case of RPK who was appointed as Vice-Chairman, he as
Chief Secretary forwarded, in accordance with the Rules of Business, the
file proposing his name without his own comment to the Chief Minister
who on April 27, 1991 accepted it and retuExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.