LexSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. versus HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. A. MEHTA (RETD) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 1 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. A. MEHTA (RETD) & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8814-8815 of 2012) JANUARY 2, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986: s.3 - Appointment of Lokayukta - 'Consultation' - Connotation of - Primacy of opinion of Chief Justice of State - Held: Section 3 must be construed in the light of meaning given by courts to the word 'consultation' so as to give effect A B c to the provisions of the statute to make it operative and 0 workable - Statutory construction of provisions of the Act itself mandates primacy of opinion of the Chief Justice - In a situation where one of the consultees has primacy of opinion under the statute, either specifically contained in a statutory provision, or by way of implication, consultation may mean E concurrence - Interpretation of statutes - Purposive construction. s.3 -Appointment of Lokayukta - Process of consultation - Chief Justice of State recommending the name of a retired Judge of High Court to Governor and Chief Minister - Leader F of opposition in the House intimating that he had been consulted by Governor and he had agreed to the appointment - Held: Process of consultation stood complete as 3 out of 4 statutory authorities had approved the name of the respondent and Chief Justice replied to Chief Minister regarding his G objections with respect to appointment of respondent as Lokayukta. s.3 - Appointment of Lokayukta - Held: Chief Justice 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A recommending only one name, instead of a panel of names, is in consonance with the law laid down by Supreme Court, and there is no cogent reason not to give effect to the said recommendation. 8 s. 3 - Delay in appointment of Lokayukta - Held: Statutory provisions make it mandatory on the part of the State to ensure that the office of Lokayukta is filled up without any delay. c Constitution of India, 1950: Arts. 163 and 166 - Manner in which Governor acts - Explained - Held: Where Governor acts as the Head of the State, except in relation to areas which are earmarked under the Constitution as giving discretion to the Governor, the 0 exercise of power by him, must only be upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers - Therefore, appointment of Lokayukta can be made by the Governor, as Head of the State, only with aid and advice of Council of Ministers, and not independently as a Statutory Authority E Administrative Law: Bias - Appointment of Lokayukta - Chief Minister raising objections to recommendation of name of respondent by Chief Justice - Held: An apprehension of bias against a person, F does not render such person, ineligible/ disqualified, or unsuitable for the purpose of being appointed to a particular post, or at least for the purpose of which, the writ of quo warranto is maintainable - Objections raised by State Government, are not cogent enough to ignore the primacy of G opinion of Chief Justice in this regard - Views of Chief Minister may not resonate with those of the public at large and, thus, such apprehension is misplaced - The reasons discussed by Chief Justice appear to be rational and based on facts - The issue appears to have been dealt with H objectively - There is no scope of judicial review so far as the STATE OF GUJARAT v. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. A. 3 MEHTA (RETD) & ORS .. process of decision making is concerned - Judicial review - A Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226. Judgments: Judgment of High Court - Use of harsh language against authorities - Held: Judges must not use strong and carping B language, rather they must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint - In the instant case, the Judge ought to have maintained a calm disposition and should not have used harsh language against a Constitutional authority, i.e. the Chief Minister - Judicial restraint. C SUPREME COURT RULES, 1966: 0. 7, r. 2 - Reference to larger bench - Factors to be taken into account - Explained. WORDS AND PHRASES: Words 'by and under' - Connotation of. D The appointment of respondent no. 1 as Lokayukta was challenged by the State Government in a writ petition E before the High Court. There being difference of opinion between the two Judges of the High Court comprising the Bench, the matter was referred to the third Judge. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed as per majority opi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.