Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 1182 - SC - Indian LawsPower of the Government to withdraw or revoke the appointment of Ld. SPP u/s- 21 of General Clauses Act - Exercise of power appears to be vitiated by malafides in law - HELD THAT:- the Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interests and nepotism and eschew window-dressing. The principles of governance have to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play. A decision may look legitimate but as a matter of fact, if the reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular accolade, the decision cannot be allowed to operate. Therefore, unless it is found that the act done by the authority earlier in existence is either contrary to the statutory provisions or unreasonable, or is against public interest, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power. "Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law". The decision n the case STATE OF T. NADU & ORS VERSUS K SHYAM SUNDER [2011 (8) TMI 1086 - SUPREME COURT] followed. Competency of State Government to appoint Ld. Special Judge on contractual basis - To Conclude present trail - With consultation of the High Court u/A- 235 of Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- the State Government is competent to appoint the learned Special Judge on contractual basis after his retirement for the period required to conclude the present trial, though with the consultation of the High Court u/A 235 of the Constitution. Further, the matter requires to be considered by the State Government with the consultation of the High Court. Therefore, the matter was referred to the High Court of Karnataka to decide on the administrative side to conclude the trial expeditiously as guaranteed u/A 21 of the Constitution, requires the extension of the services of the learned Special Judge. As the matter was urgent, the High Court of Karnataka is requested to take a decision in this regard as early as possible. The decision in the case STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS SINGHARA SINGH AND OTHERS [1963 (8) TMI 43 - SUPREME COURT] followed.
|