2005(2) Supreme 103
Supreme Court of India
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, Shivaraj V. Patil, K.G. Balakrishnan, B.N. Srikrishna and G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Shri Ashok Tanwar and Anr. —Appellants
versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8248 of 2004
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15706 of 2001)
Decided on 17-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General, (NP), Amarendra Saran, Additional Solicitor General, Ramji Srinivasan, Ms. R. Hakeem, Sajith P., Gagan Sareen, Advocate for Attorney General of India, K.P. Singh and L.R. Rath, Mahabir Singh, Ajay Pal, Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Nikhil Jain, Gagandeep Sharma, Amit Veer Singh, Balaji Srinivasan, V. Sudeer, MBRS. Raju, Ms. S. Sunita, S. Sachin, J.B. Ravi, Riju Raj Jamawal, Advocates.
Held : A person to be appointed as President of the State Commission has to be necessarily a sitting or a retired Judge of a High Court and not that any person can be appointed as President of the State Commission. This being the position, it does not stand to the reason as to why again in respect of a sitting or retired Judge of a High Court the whole process contemplated under Article 217 of the Constitution must be resorted to. To put in clear terms so as to remove any doubt we state that in the matter of appointment of a sitting or retired Judge of a High Court as President of the State Commission process must be initiated by the Chief Justice under Section 16 of the Act and ‘consultation’ contemplated in the said Section is ‘consultation’ only with the Chief Justice of the High Court and not with the collegium. (Para 23)
When Article 223 of the Constitution in specific terms confers powers on acting Chief Justice to discharge the functions of the office of Chief Justice without any limitation or rider, it cannot be accepted that an acting Chief Justice cannot perform the duties expected to be performed by him under Section 16 of the Act. Consultation with acting Chief Justice under Section 16 of the Act is to be taken as consultation with the Chief Justice of a High Court. Powers conferred under Article 223 of the Constitution on an acting Chief Justice to perform the duties of the Chief Justice is available for the purpose of Section 16 of the Act. We may hasten to add that it is not the case of the petitioner in High Court that the Chief Justice of the High Court was going to be appointed shortly or the matter of appointment of President of the State Commission was such, which on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did not call for an immediate decision by Acting Chief Justice and could have waited for the appointment of the Chief Justice of the High Court. In other words, no statutory provision can stand in the way of constitutional provision in case of conflict between them. (Para 27)
Judgment
Shivaraj V. Patil J.—Leave granted.
2. A Bench of three learned Judges of this Court made the following order of reference on 7th March, 2002:-
“In the present case, under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has to be appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of the State. The question which arises is whether consultation with an Acting Chief Justice is sufficient compliance or not. This question involves interpretation of Articles 217 and 223 of the Constitution and as there is no decision of this Court which can be applied in the present case, then by virtue of Article 145(3) of the Constitution this case involving the said question of law involving interpretation of the Constitution should be heard by a Bench of not less than five learned Judges.
Let the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders for hearing of the case as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four months.”
Articles 217 to the extent relevant and 223 of the Constitution of India read:-
“217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a judge of a High Court.—(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as provided in article 224, and in any other case, until he attains the age of sixty-two years:
“223. Appointment of acting Chief Justice.—When the office of Chief Justice of a High Court is vacant or when any such Chief Justice is by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to perform the duties of his office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such one of the other Judges of the court as the President may appoint for the purposes.”
3. On 3rd March, 2000 The Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (F&S), Government of Himachal Pradesh, addressed a letter to Registrar General, Himachal Pradesh High Court stating that Justice P.N. Nag (retired Judge of the High Court ) shall cease to hold the post of President of H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (for short ‘the State Commission’) on 4.3.2000, after attaining the age of 67 years. In accordance with the provisions contained in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’), a person who is or has been a Judge of High Court can be appointed as President of the State Commission, after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. After consideration the State Government decided to take the services of Justice Surinder Swaroop, a sitting Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for appointment as President of the State Commission. Therefore, he requested that the proposal of the State Government may kindly be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court for consideration and recommending the name of Justice Surinder Swaroop for appointment as President of the State Commission on part-time basis.
4. On the same day the High Court addressed a letter to the State Government indicating that there was defect in the process adopted by the State Government and that the reference made by the State Government was not in conformity with the provisions of law as the executive is expected to approach the Hon’ble Chief Justice when the appointment was to be made, to initiate the proposal as per the procedure to be followed for appointment of High Court Judge.
5. The State Government wrote the second letter to the Registrar General of the High Court requesting the Hon’ble Chief Justice to initiate the process for filling up the vacancy to the post of President of the State Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Ashish Handa, Advocate vs. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Co
R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India and others
Bishal Chand Jain v. Chattur Sen and others
Ms. Aruna Roy and others v. Union of India and others
Ashish Handa, Advocate v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and others v. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.