9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 633 - SC - Indian LawsAppointment of judicial office - power upon the State Government to appoint the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, as President of the Revenue Tribunal constituted under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 - Writ Petition that the appointment of the President of the Tribunal can be made only upon consultation with the High Court - Held that - Section 13(1) of the Act, 1957, provides that in exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court as enumerated therein and shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of Sections 195, 480 and 482 of the Cr.P.C., and that its proceedings shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings, within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the IPC. The Tribunal does not deal only with revenue matters provided under the Schedule I, but has also been conferred appellate/revisional powers under various other statutes. Most of those statutes provide that the Tribunal, while dealing with appeals, references, revisions, would act giving strict adherence to the procedure prescribed in the CPC, for deciding a matter as followed by the Civil Court and certain powers have also been conferred upon it, as provided in the Cr.P.C. and IPC. Thus, we do not have any hesitation in concurring with the finding recorded by the High Court that the Tribunal is akin to a court and performs similar functions The object of consultation is to render the consultation meaningful to serve the intended purpose. It requires the meeting of minds between the parties involved in the process of consultation on the basis of material facts and points, to evolve a correct or at least satisfactory solution. If the power can be exercised only after consultation, consultation must be conscious, effective, meaningful and purposeful. It means that the party must disclose all the facts to other party for due deliberation. The consultee must express his opinion after full consideration of the matter upon the relevant facts and quintessence. Thus it is evident that the procedure to be observed under Article 234 of the Constitution goes to the extent of the true meaning of consultative process and not an empty formality - No cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court - writ dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 3(1)(iii)(a) of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules, 1982. 2. Eligibility criteria for the appointment of the President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 3. Whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is a "court" and the implications thereof. 4. Requirement of consultation with the High Court for the appointment of the President of the Tribunal under Article 234 of the Constitution of India. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Rule 3(1)(iii)(a) of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules, 1982: The High Court of Gujarat struck down Rule 3(1)(iii)(a) of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules, 1982, which allowed the State Government to appoint the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat as President of the Revenue Tribunal. The respondents challenged this rule, arguing that the office of the Chairman, being a "judicial office," could not be filled by someone who had been an Administrative Officer all his life. The appellants contended that the Secretary had sufficient experience in revenue matters and was eligible for the position. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal performs functions akin to a court and thus requires a judicial officer as its President. 2. Eligibility Criteria for the Appointment of the President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal: The appellants argued that the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, having served in various revenue-related administrative roles, was eligible for the position of President of the Tribunal. However, the High Court held that the President of the Tribunal must be a "Judicial Officer," such as a District Judge, and not an administrative officer. The Supreme Court agreed with this view, noting that the Tribunal's functions require judicial expertise, which an administrative officer may lack. 3. Whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is a "Court" and the Implications Thereof: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal is a "court" in the strict sense, as it performs judicial functions, including adjudicating disputes and exercising powers similar to those of a civil court. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that the Tribunal's proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings and that it has powers akin to those of a civil court. This classification as a court has significant implications, including the requirement for the President of the Tribunal to be a judicial officer. 4. Requirement of Consultation with the High Court for the Appointment of the President of the Tribunal under Article 234 of the Constitution of India: The High Court held that the appointment of the President of the Tribunal requires the concurrence of the High Court under Article 234 of the Constitution, which pertains to the appointment of persons to judicial service. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that consultation with the High Court is necessary to ensure that the appointee has the requisite judicial qualifications and experience. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal must be a judicial officer and that the appointment requires consultation with the High Court. The decision reinforces the principle that tribunals performing judicial functions must be headed by individuals with judicial expertise to ensure the proper administration of justice.
|
