IMPORTANT POINT
PIL misuse of.

Judgment :-

Aftab Alam, J.

1. The two petitioners, who are advocates of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, have filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, purportedly in public interest. This writ petition seeks a writ in the nature of quo warranto, quashing the appointment of respondent No.3 as a judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh to cancel his enrolment as an advocate. The quashing of the appointment of respondent No.3 as a judge of the High Court is sought on the ground that the consultation process leading to his appointment was vitiated as both the High Court and the Supreme Court Collegia as well as the Central Government failed to consider two essential facts; one, at the time of his appointment, a criminal trial was pending in which respondent No.3 was not only an accused but a proclaimed offender and the other that even at the time of his enrolment as an advocate he had concealed the criminal proceedings and in the relevant column of the application for enrolment with the Bar Council, he falsely stated that there was no pending proceeding against him.

2. In order to put the petitioners’ challenge to the appointment of respondent No.3 as a judge of the High Court in the proper perspective, it will be useful to give here a brief outline of the relevant facts.

3. The name of respondent No.3 was recommended for appointment as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on November 14, 1998 by the Chief Justice of the High Court with the other two Collegium members agreeing with the recommendation. The recommendation made by the High Court was received in the Supreme Court on February 15, 1999. At that time the age of respondent No.3 was 41 years and six months and he had completed over 15 years of legal practice. In the resume prepared by the Ministry of Law and Justice that came to be put up before the Supreme Court Collegium, respondent No.3 was described as under:

“Shri N.V. Ramana, Advocate:

BIO-DATA

He was enrolled as an Advocate on February 10, 1983. He has practiced in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Central and Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals and the Supreme Court of India in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Labour, Service and Election matters. He has specialized in Constitutional, Criminal, Service and Inter- State River laws. He has handled about 800 cases during the last three years. He has functioned as Panel Counsel for Andhra Bank, Vysa Bank, United India Insurance Co. and Food Corporation of India. He has also functioned as Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government and Standing Counsel for Railways in the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. At present he is functioning as Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. His professional income during the last three years was as tabulated below:

Year Gross Income Taxable Income

1996-97 7,87,210 2,21,200

1997-98 10,31,465 3,68,950

1998-99 38,95,973 16,94,928”

And the Intelligence Bureau report about him stated as under:

“I.B. REPORT:

He enjoys good personal/professional image. Nothing adverse against his character, reputation and integrity has come to notice, so far. He has also not come to notice for links with any political party/communal organization.

None of his relatives is either serving or has served earlier as judge in any High Court or Supreme Court.”

4. Following the consultative process between the different constitutional functionaries, a notification was issued on June 19, 2000 appointing respondent No.3 as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and respondent No.3 took the oath and assumed the office as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on June 27, 2000. Since then he is continuously working in that capacity.

5. It now comes to light that all through the period when the recommendation was made for his appointment as a judge and the notification was issued and he assumed the office as a judge, a criminal case was pendin