IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement for appointment of Lokpal u/s 3(1) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 in the word "consultation" means that the consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court is mandatory and his opinion will have primacy over opinion of leader of opposition.

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Leave granted.

2. Short question involved in this appeal is - what is the requirement and what meaning could be assigned to Consultation as contemplated under Section 3 (1) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") ? Proviso (a) to Section 3(1) of the Act prescribes that the Government shall appoint Lokpal after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa and the Leader of the Opposition, if there is any.

3. In a Public Interest Litigation filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 14728 of 1996, by judgment and order dated 21.9.2001, the High Court of Orissa set aside the appointment of appellant as Lokpal on the ground that there was no effective consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

4. Before dealing with the contentions raised, we would first refer to the brief facts of the present case. Appellant- retired Judge of the High Court of Orissa was appointed as the Lokpal by the Governor of Orissa by issuing Notification dated 26.11.1996. Before that, as provided under Section 3(1) of the Act, the Chief Minister of Orissa wrote a letter on 8.10.1996 to the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and the Leader of the Opposition that the three persons named therein were under consideration for the Office of the Lokpal and requested them to convey their considered views on the subject. By letter dated 10.10.1996, the Chief Justice replied that the appellant- a retired Judge of Orissa High Court may be appointed as Lokpal. Thereafter, on 11.11.1996, the Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter inter alia stating that the long record of previous Lokpals was one of palpable non-performance and that he construes that act of consultation as envisaged under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act implies making of relevant suggestions on the issue. It was also stated that he wished that the person to be appointed as Lokpal must inter alia be a reputed judicial personality with high integrity, professional maturity and courage of conviction. According to his knowledge, one other person named therein who was working as Chairman of State Administrative Tribunal could be one with such qualities and he may be considered for the august Office. Thereafter, by Notification dated 26.11.1996, the Government of Orissa appointed the appellant as the Lokpal with effect from the date he is sworn in as such.

5. After hearing the parties, PIL was allowed and it was held that there was no effective consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and that the consultation under Section 3(1) of the Act is not an empty formality but it should be real, full and effective amongst the Governor, Chief Justice and Leader of the Opposition. The Court observed that there was no consultation with the Chief Justice with regard to the name suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and if the Chief Minister had consulted the Chief Justice, he would have given his opinion on the same and, therefore, the consultation as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Act had not taken its full course. Therefore, appointment of the appellant as Lokpal was void. That order is under challenge in this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. It is his submission that the suggestion made by the Chief Justice of the High Court would have primacy. It is also submitted that the consultation with the Leader of the Opposition would not mean that the Government should concur with the same or should postpone the appointment of Lokpal and consider the names suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. He pointed out that in the present case, the Leader of the Opposition has not made any grievance against appointment of the appellant or has not stated anything that he is not fit for being appointed to the said post. Merely because he has suggested other name th