SHRI ASHOK TANWAR AND ANR. versus STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1065 · Decided: 17-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI ASHOK TANWAR AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 17, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, 
B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 217 and 223. 
A 
B 
High Court-Acting Chief Justice-Power and duties of-Head, no C 
restriction or limitation in performation of duties of the Chief justice. 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
Section 16-State Consumer Redressal Commission-President-Ap-
D 
pointment-Process-Jnitiation of-Consultation with the Acting Chief Justice-
Held, valid. 
Considering the impending vacancy arising to the post of the 
President of the H.P. State Consum".r Redressal Commission, state 
government decided to take the services of a sitting judge of the High E 
Court of Himachal Pradesh for which a request was made that the 
proposal of the state government be placed before the Hon'ble Chief 
Justice, High Court for consideration and recommendation of the name 
proposed. Reference made by the state government not being in con-
formity with the provisions of law, High court addressed a letter to the F 
state government, pointing out the defect, that when the appointment 
was to be made the proposal was to be initiated as per the procedure 
followed for the appointment of High Court Judge. State Government, 
accordingly, wrote the second letter to the Registrar General of the High 
Court requesting the Hon'ble Chief Justice to initiate the process for 
filling up the vacancy to the post of President of the State Commission G 
in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the law laid down by 
this Court in Ashish Handa, Advocate v. Hon 'ble the Chief Justice of High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana and Others. Registrar General of the High 
Court conveyed recommendation of the Chief Justice for appointment 
of the name proposed as President of the State Commission holding H 
1065 
1066 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
additional charge of the post, further stating that the steps may be taken 
for appointment of President of the State Commission in accordance 
with law and rules. Appellants, residents of the state, claiming to espouse 
public interest challenged the appointment as being not in accordance 
with law and was contrary to the decisions of this Court and sought for 
B writ of quo warranto and to quash the appointment of mainly contending 
that there was a defect in the initiation process for appointment to the 
post of President of the State Commission on the ground that the process 
was initiated by the State Government instead of Chief Justice and that 
the Acting Chief Justice did not consult the two senior most Judges of 
c 
D 
E 
the High Court before recommending the name for appointment as the 
President of the State Commission. Reliance on the decisions of Ashish 
Handa, Advocate v. Hon 'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab & 
Haryana and Others (supra) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record 
Association and Others v. Union of India was placed. High Court dis-
missed the writ petition. 
It was contended by the appellant that recommendation made by 
the Acting Chief Justice without consulting two senior most judges as 
required in the light of decisions of this Court in Supreme Court Advo-
cates.:.on Record Association (supra) and Ashish Handa (supra), the High 
Court ought to have allowed the writ petition and quashed the appoint- , 
ment of respondent No. 3. It was also contended that th~ Acting Chief 
Justice could not initiate the process for appointment under Section 16 
of the Act as it is only the Chief Justice, who is to be consulted; the 
Acting Chief Justice is not appointed to the Office of Chief Justice, he 
is only to discharge the duties of the Chief Justice. Reliance was placed 
F on the decision of High Court of Allahabad in Bishal Chand Jain v. 
Chattur Sen and Others. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I.I. The process of consultation envisaged under Section 
G 16 of the Act can neither be equated to the constitutional requirement 
of consultation under Article 217 of the Constitution oflndia in relation 
to appointment of a Judge of a High Court nor can it be placed on the 
same pedestal. Consultation by the Chief Justice of the High Court with 
two senior most Judges in selecting a suitable candidate for appointment 
~· 
H as a Judge is for the purpose of selecting the best person to the high 
.. 
SHRI ASHOK TANWAR v. STATE 
1067 
office of a Judge of the High Court as a

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