LexSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL versus BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 1 S.C.R. 678 STATE OF UTIARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL & OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos.1134-1135 of 2002) JANUARY 18, 2010 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 165, 217 and 226 - Advocate General for the State - Eligibility - Age - HELD: It is fully settled that the Advocate General for the State can be appointed after he/she attains the age of 62 years - Similarly, the Attorney General 0 for India can be appointed after he/she attains the age of 65 years - Public Interest Litigation. Public Interest Litigation: Appointment of Advocate General for the State - E Challenged by way of writ petition before High Court on the ground that incumbent before his appointment to the post had crossed 62 years of age - HELD: The issue having been settled half a century ago by a judgment of the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and the position having been F reiterated in several decisions of High Courts and Supreme Court thereafter, filing of writ petition by practicing advocate on an issue which is no longer res integra, is a clear abuse of process of the Court for extraneous considerations - This tendency has to be curbed effectively - Exemplary cost . G imposed on writ petitioners - Significance and evolution of public interest litigation - Explained - In order to preserve purity and sanctity of PIL, guidelines laid down - Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 165, 217 and 226 - Practice and Procedure. H 678 STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 679 CHAUFAL & ORS. Precedent: A When an issue is no longer res integra, fifing of indiscriminate petitions raising the controversy repeatedly creates unnecessary strain on judicial system and leads to inordinate delay in disposal of genuine and bona fide cases B - It is the bounden duty of Courts to ensure that controversy once settled by an authoritative pronouncement should not be reopened unless there are extra-ordinary reasons for doing so - Though a petitioner can ask the Court to review its own judgment, but that should be in a bona fide presentation with listing of all relevant cases in a chronological order and a brief C description of what the judicial opinion has been,- and why there should be re-consideration of the existing law. 'Words and Phrases: D Expression 'public interest litigation' - Defined. A writ petition was filed as public interest litigation by the respondents in the High Court challenging the appointment of the Advoca~ General for the State on the ground that the incumbent ·flad crossed the age of 62 E years before his appointmentto the post and, therefore, he was not eligible to hold the post. The High Court directed the State Government to take decision on the issue within the time stipulated i'n the order. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the app~als. F Giving directions to High Courts and adjourning the appeals for compliance thereof, the Court HELD: 1.1. In view of the clear enunciation of law in various judgments, the controversy has been fully settled G that the Advocate General for the State can be appointed after he/she attains the age of 62 years. Similarly, the Attorney General for India can be appointed after he/she attains the age of 65 years. In a number of other cases regarding the appointment of other authorities, courts H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R. A have consistently taken the similar view. [Para 15) (706- H; 707-A-B] Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. Sonepat v. Their Workmen 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 89; Binay Kant Mani Tripathi v. Union B of India & Others (1993) 4 SCC 49, relied on. G.D. Karkare v. T.L. Shevde & Others AIR 1952 Nagpur 330, Ghanshyam Chandra Mathur v. The State of Rajasthan & Others 1979 Weekly Law Notes 773; Dr. Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others AIR 1983 Raj. 149; C Manendra Nath Rai & Another v. Virendra Bhatia & Others AIR 2004 All. 133; Prem Chandra Sharma & Others v. Milan Banerji & Others 2005 (3) ESC 2001 and Baishnab Patnaik & Others v. The State AIR 1952 Orissa 60 and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Others (2005) 5 SCC 136, referred to. D 1.2. When the controversy is no longer res integra, the filing of indiscriminate petitions raising the controversy repeatedly, creates unnecessary straln on the judicial system and consequently leads to inordinate E delay in disposal of genuine and bona fide cases. [Para 9 and 24] [709-G-H; 7
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.