STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. versus HONBLE MR. JUSTICE (RETD) RAMESH AMRITLAL MEHTA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 14-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 72 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
v. 
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE (RETD) RAMESH AMRITLAL 
MEHTA & ORS. 
8 
(Review Petition (c) No(s). 362-363 of 2013) 
c 
in 
(Civil Appeal No(s). 8814-8815 of 2012) 
MARCH 14, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Art. 137 - Review Petition - On the ground of difference 
o of opinion in the judgment under renew and a subsequent 
judgment - Held: In the light of distinctive features in Gujarat 
Act and in Kamataka Act which have been clearly spelt out 
in the judgment under review and in the subsequent judgment 
and the grounds raised in the review petitions having been 
E dealt with in detail in the judgment under review and 
concluded by adducing adequate reasons, no case for review 
is made out and there is no apparent error in the impugned 
judgment - Review petitions are dismissed -
Gujarat 
Lokayukta Act, 1986 - s.3(1), proviso - Kamataka Lokayukta 
F Act, 1984 - s. 3(2)(a). 
Justice K.P. Mahapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and 
Ors. - 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 166 = (2002) 8 SCC 1 - relied 
on 
Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. 
G Krishna & Ors. 2013 (3) SCC 117 - distinguished 
H 
State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) 
- 2013 (1) SCR 1 = 2013 (1) SCALE 7 - referred to. 
72 
STATE OF GUJARAT v. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. A. 73 
MEHTA (RETD) & ORS. 
Case Law Reference: 
A 
(2013) 3 sec 117 
distinguished para 2 
2013 (1) SCR 1 
referred to 
para 2 
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 166 
relied on 
para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition 
B 
(Civil) Nos. 362-363 of 2013. 
h 
Civil Appeal Nos. 8814-8815 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.10.2011 and 
C 
18.01.2012 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in 
Sepcial Civil Application No. 12632 of 2011. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
D 
1. The original appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815/ 
2012 have filed the present review petitions seeking review of 
our judgment dated 02.01.2013. 
2. We bestowed our serious consideration to the various 
grounds raised in the review petition. On a detailed reading of 
E 
the grounds, it is quite apparent that the provocation for filing 
these review petitions is mainly the subsequent decision of this 
Court in the case of Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) 
v. Janekere C. Krishna & Ors. dated 11.01.2013 in Civil 
Appeal Nos.197-199 of 2013@ SLP (C) Nos.15658-15660 
F 
of 2012 which related to appointment of Upa-Lokayukta under 
Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. In the said 
judgment, the judgment under review reported as State of 
Gujarat v. Hon'b/e Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) - 2013 (1) 
SCALE 7 was also noted and the clear distinction as between 
G · 
Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and Section 3(1) of 
Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 was spelt out. 
3. By referring to the above later decision in the forefront, 
the sum and substance of the grounds raised for review herein 
is three-fold, namely, 
H 
A 
B 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
(1) 
there is divergence of views taken by this Court in 
the impugned judgment and in the later judgment 
as regards the interpretation of language of Section 
3 in both the legislations, 
(2) 
the role of the constitutional authorities involved in 
the consultation process and; 
(3) 
regarding primacy of the opinion of the Chief 
Justice vis-a-vis the Chief Minister of the concerned 
State. 
c 
4. At the very outset we find that none of the above 
grounds have any substance. Since, we find the whole basis 
for the review by relying upon the later judgment of this Court, 
it will be necessary to highlight the clear distinction as between 
the judgment under review and the said later decision of this 
0 Court. 
5. The later decision of this Court considered the question 
about the primacy of the views expressed by the Chief Justice 
of the High Court of Karnataka in making appointment to the 
post of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta by the Governor of 
E Karnataka in exercise of power conferred on him under Section 
3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 
(hereinafter called as "Karnataka Act"). Section 3 of the 
Karnataka Act reads as under: 
F 
G 
H 
"3. Appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta 
(1) For the purpose of conducting investigations and 
enquiries in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the 
Governor shall appoint a person to be known as the 
Lokayukta and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.