Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 131 - HC - Indian LawsRejection of candidature - appointments to the post of Presiding Officer of the DRT - main submission of appellant is that the ACC has acted arbitrarily in differing from the view expressed by the Selection Committee, without giving any reasons - Held that - The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the DRT Bill noted that its purpose was the creation of special tribunals with special powers of adjudication of such matters and speedy recovery as critical to the successful implementation of the financial sector reforms . It was noted that the existing procedure for recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions had blocked a significant portion of their funds in unproductive assets, the value of which deteriorates of which the passage of time. In the present case, no doubt that the two Appellants were recommended by the Selection Committee on 30th March 2016 for appointment as Presiding Officers of the DRT. Their names were thereafter sent for verification to the IB. The IB reports along with the recommendation of the Selection Committee were thereafter placed before the ACC which comprises the Prime Minister of India (who is the Chairman of the ACC) and the Union Minister for Home Affairs in the first instance on 1st February 2017. The ACC on that date did not take a decision as to the appointments of the two Appellants. The ACC called for a fresh IB Report in respect of the two Appellants. Thereafter for the second time on 1st August 2017, the ACC considered the case of the two appellants along, in light of the fresh IB report and decided not to appoint them as Presiding Officers. This was then communicated to each of them by separate Om dated 8th August, 2017. In the present case, the ACC was the final authority. The fact that the ACC called for a fresh IB report is an indication that it wanted to be doubly sure before acting on the first report of the IB. This could be viewed as an extra check against arbitrariness arising from a subjective assessment of the person preparing the IB report. There was no need for the ACC to disclose why it was asking for a fresh IB report. Much less was there any requirement in law for ACC for the Respondents to inform the Appellants why the ACC asked for a fresh IB report. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Appellants' Candidature by ACC. 2. Validity of ACC's Decision in Light of IB Reports. 3. Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226. 4. Applicability of Precedents and Legal Principles. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Appellants' Candidature by ACC: The Appellants, practicing Advocates, responded to an advertisement for the post of Presiding Officer of DRT. They were recommended by the Selection Committee but their appointments were rejected by the ACC. The Appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the ACC acted arbitrarily by differing from the Selection Committee's recommendations without providing reasons. 2. Validity of ACC's Decision in Light of IB Reports: The ACC deferred the Appellants' cases and called for a fresh IB report. The fresh IB report led the ACC to decline the appointments. The learned Single Judge, after examining the sealed records, found that the ACC's decision was based on the adverse IB report. The Division Bench, however, noted that the IB reports could not be termed as prima facie adverse but remanded the matter back to the ACC for reconsideration, which reaffirmed its decision. 3. Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226: The Court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. The Court must ensure that the procedure was followed, the decision was based on relevant materials, and was not influenced by extraneous factors or malice. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench found no procedural errors or extraneous influences in the ACC's decision-making process. The Court reiterated that it cannot substitute its decision for that of the ACC, especially when the decision is based on IB reports. 4. Applicability of Precedents and Legal Principles: The Appellants relied on precedents like Union of India v. N. P. Dhamania and R. S. Mittal v. Union of India to argue that the ACC should provide reasons for differing from the Selection Committee's recommendations. However, the Court noted that the ACC is not required to communicate the reasons for its decision, as long as the records are produced before the Court when challenged. The Court distinguished the present case from other precedents, emphasizing the unique statutory framework governing DRT appointments. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the ACC's decision was justified based on the fresh IB report and the statutory framework. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the ACC's discretion in appointment decisions and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
|