LexSTATE OF A.P. AND ORS. versus K. MOHANLAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. A v. K. MOHANLAL AND ANR. MAY 14, 1998 [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] B Service Law : Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Section 7 - Appointment of Judicial and Revenue Members-Whether consultation with C the Chief Justice essential-Held, Not essential. Constitution of India-Articles 32,226, 323A, 323B --A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Section 7-appointment of Members of Tribunal- without consultation with High Court-Validity of -- upheld The Respondents challenged the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Land D •- ~ Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 on the ground that the Act is not within the legislative competence of the State that Section 7 of the Act is - unconstitutional in as much as the appointment of the members of the Tribunal is not done in consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned E High Court and that the Constitution of such a Tribunal is unconstitutional. The High Court though upheld the validity of the Act passed certain directions as regards the appointment of the Judicial and Revenue Members to the Tribunal. The High Court held that the State shall not make any appointments without consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned F High Court. On appeal, the Respondents contended that the members of a Tribunal Constituted under Article 323B must enjoy the same degree of independence and freedom from executive influence, as is enjoyed by the higher judiciary because some of the jurisdiction of the judiciary is transferred to the Special G Court or Tribunal and that ifthere is no consultation with the chief Justice of the High Court in the appointments to the Special Court or Tribunal, this independence will be effected. Allowing the appeals, this Court held I. It would not be correct to hold that because the members of the H 463 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998) 3 S. C.R. A Special Court can be appointed by the Government without consulting the Chief Justice of the State, the Special court is an unconstitutional court, since its members do not enjoy the same degree of independence as the members of the higher judiciary, especially when the Chairman's appointment is in consultation with the Chief Justice of the State. Also, the remedy under Articles 226 and 227 is available against the Orders of the Special Court. B [469-BJ L. Chandrakumarv. UO.I., (1997] 3 SCC 261 and S.P. Sampat Kumar etc. etc. v. UO.!. and Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 124, referred to. 2. The authority to appoint, which is given to the Government under C Section 7 of the Act of 1982 is upheld. A composite Tribunal consisting of Judicial and Administrative Members may be constituted in the manner prescribed by law. It may or may not enjoy the same degree of independence as the higher judiciary of the country. Howsoever desirable that independence may be, its abseuce will not per se, make the Tribunal unconstitutional since its orders can be "corrected" by the higher judiciary. [469-E-F] D L. Chandra Kumar v. U.0.1.and Ors., (1997] 3 SCC 261, referred to. 3. The power of judicial review which the High Court as well as this Court exercises under Articles 226 and 227 in respect of the High Court and Article 32 in respect of this Court has been looked upon as a safeguard against improper functioning of such Tribunals. However, in the light of the E express provision of Part XIV of the Constitution containing Articles 323 A and 323 B, it is incorrect to hol!J that the Tribunal are unconstitutional, at least when the appointment of the Chairman of the Tribunal is in consultation with/nomination by the Chief Justice of the High Court. (470-E-F] F 4. The High Court's directions for mandatory consultation with the G Chief Justice of the High Court in the case of appointment of all members including Revenue Members of the Special Court, is not correct. The High Court's direction that existing appointments made to the Special Court should be placed before it for the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court is also not correct. [470-G) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2734-2735 of 1998 From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.97 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 25370 and 25683 of 1996. . H Dipankar Gupta (A.C.) for the Appellants. - ..... - STATE v. K. MOHANLAL [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 465 1 Mrs. K. Amreshwari, Ms. Asha Nair, Ms. Shanti Narayan and K. Ram A Kumar for t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.