IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
LAXMAN RUPCHAND MEGHWANI – Applicants
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondents
Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 3734 of 2015 With Special Criminal Application No. 4360, 5372 of 2015 With Criminal Misc. Application No. 11998 of 2015 in Special Criminal Application No. 3734 of 2015
Decided On : 30-10-2015
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 24-Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Legal Affairs of the Government Rules, 2009-Appointment as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor-Words "in his opinion fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor" are not to be construed in the sense of a mere discretionary power, but in the context of words "in consultation with the Sessions Judge" imposes a statutory duty to examine fitness and suitability of persons as one of important eligibility criteria or statutory requirements-Words "in the opinion" does not mean purely subjective determination by District Magistrate-It is not correct to say that words "in the opinion" leave the matter entirely at subjective will of District Magistrate and High Court cannot interfere in appropriate cases even when there is a failure to comply with the legal requirements or the decision is not in public interest-Public Prosecutor holds a "public office"-He holds public office within scope of a quo warranto.
Result-Special Criminal Applications allowed.
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Since the issues raised in all the three captioned writ applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. However, for the sake of convenience, the Special Criminal Application No. 3734 of 2015 is treated as the lead matter.
2. The Government of Gujarat, by order and in the name of the Governor, issued a Notification dated 07.05.2015 and appointed Shri Raghuvir Nandkrishna Pandya, the respondent No. 3 herein, as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor of Vadodara. The question for consideration is: whether the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor in the District of Vadodara was an infraction of Section 24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr. P.C.) and the Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Legal Affairs of the Government Rules, 2009 (for short, the Rules 2009)? Was he qualified for an appointment as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor – if so – has the mandatory process of consultation as provided under Section 24 of the Cr. P.C. stood followed?
3. The applicants of all the three writ applications are residents of Vadodara. They have prayed for a writ of quo warranto removing Shri Raghuvir Pandya from the office of the District Government Pleader (DGP) and Public Prosecutor, Vadodara, as according to them, he is not fit and suitable for the post. It is the case of the writ applicants that appropriate representations were made before the State Government in writing as regards the appointment of Shri Pandya, as the DGP and PP of Vadodara. The case of the writ applicants is that Shri Pandya in the year 2004 was the Public Prosecutor and had conducted a very sensational trial popularly known as the “Best Bakery Case”. It is pointed out that the Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 (4) SCC 158 made scathing remarks against Shri Pandya in his capacity as the Public Prosecutor as regards his character, integrity and competency. According to the writ applicants, the scathing remarks passed by the Supreme Court in the above referred case renders Shri Pandya to be totally unfit and unsuitable for the post of the DGP and Public Prosecutor. It is also the case of the writ applicants that there was no effective consultation between the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge as regards the observations of the Supreme Court and also on other vital issues.
WHAT WAS THE BEST BAKERY CASE?
4. Between 8.30 p.m. of 1.3.2002 and 11.00 a.m. of 2.3.2002, a business concern known as the "Best Bakery" at Vadodara was burnt down by an unruly mob of large number of people. In the ghastly incident, 14 persons died. The attacks were stated to be a part of the retaliatory action to avenge the killing of 56 persons burnt to death in the Sabarmati Express near godhra in the State of Gujarat. A lady by name Zahira was the main eyewitness to the incident who lost her family members including helpless women and innocent children in the gruesome incident. Many persons other than Zahira were also the eyewitnesses. The accused persons were the perpetrators of the crime. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in June 2002. During trial the purported eyewitnesses resiled from the statements made during investigation. Faulty and biased investigation as well as perfunctory trial were said to have marred the sanctity of the entire exercise undertaken to bring the culprits to books. By judgment dated 27.6.2003, the trial Court directed acquittal of the accused persons. Zahira appeared before the National Human Rights Commission stating that she was threatened by powerful politicians not to depose against the accused persons.
4.1 On 7.8.2003, an appeal was filed by t
State of Punjab vs. Salil Sabhlok
Centre for PIL and Another vs. Union of India
Darya Singh vs. State of Punjab
Mundrika Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar
S.P. Gupta vs. President of India
M. Manohar Reddy and Another vs. Union of India and Others
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner
State of U.P. and Another vs. Johri Mal
Shri Kumar Padma Prasad vs. Union of India & Others
High Court of Gujarat and Another vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Others
Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. vs. Financial Commr. and Secy. to Govt. of Haryana
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat
Harlal Singh Chauhan and Others vs. State of U.P. (1993) 3 SCC 552
State of U.P. and Another vs. Johari Mal
Central Electricity Supply Ulitity of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others
Centre for PIL and Another vs. Union of India and Another
Mundrika Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P. AIR 1991 SC 537
Rajiv Ranjan Singh vs. Union of India
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rakesh Kumar Keshari
Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. R. Gandhi and Others
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others
Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others
University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another
Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others
Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others
Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India and Others
Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chaudhary and Others
Om Prakash Chautala vs. Kanwar Bhan and Others
Awani Kumar Upadhyay vs. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad and Others
B.R. Kapur vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India and Others
Kanta Kathuria vs. Manak Chand Surana
Madukar G.E. Pankaker vs. Jaswant Chobbildas Rajani
Mundrika Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar
Mukul Dalal vs. Union of India
Hintendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra
Rabindra Kumar Nayak vs. Collector, Mayurbhanj, Orissa
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.