TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815/2012 have filed the present review petitions seeking review of our judgment dated 02.01.2013. 2. We bestowed our serious consideration to the various grounds raised in the review petition. On a detailed reading of the grounds, it is quite apparent that the provocation for filing these review petitions is mainly the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna Ors. dated 11.01.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos.197-199 of 2013 @ SLP (C) Nos.15658-15660 of 2012 which related to appointment of Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. In the said judgment, the judgment under review reported as State of Gujarat v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct reads as under: 3. Appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (1) For the purpose of conducting investigations and enquiries in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Governor shall appoint a person to be known as the Lokayukta and one or more persons to be known as the Upa-lokayukta or Upa-lokayuktas. 2(a) A person to be appointed as the Lokayukta shall be a person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or that of the Chief Justice of a High Court and shall be appointed on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayed by the Chief Minister in advising the Governor and the collegium of consultation to be made, has been specifically discussed and concluded to the following effect in paragraph 37: Therefore, for the purpose of appointment of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta all the five consultees are common. The appointment has to be made by the Governor on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with those five dignitaries. 8. As far as the Gujarat Lokayukta Act is concerned, the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act is relevant which is to the following effect: 3(1) For the purpose of conducting investigations in accordance with provisions of this Act, the Governor shall, by warrant under his hand and seal, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) reported in 2013 (1) SCALE 7. Interpreting that provision this Court held that the views of the Chief Justice have primacy in the matter of appointment of Lokayukta in the State of Gujarat. Every Statute has, therefore, to be construed in the context of the scheme of the Statute as a whole, consideration of context, it is trite, is to give meaning to the legislative intention according to the terms in which it has been expressed. 11. The later judgment has also considered similar such provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983, Assam Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act 1985, Bihar Lokayukta Act 1973, Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhyadesh, 2002, Delhi Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act 1995, Gujarat Lokayukta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice of the State High Court or the collegium of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India, as the case may be, when a person has to hold a judicial office and discharge functions akin to judicial functions. 14. After holding so, by referring to Section 3(1) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act which is in pari materia with the Gujarat Act, this Court by making specific reference to the decision which came up to this Court in Justice K.P. Mohapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and Ors. - (2002) 8 SCC 1 has held as under in paragraph 57: 57. The High Court, in the instant case has, placed considerable reliance on the Judgment of this Court in K.P. Mohapatra (supra) and took the view that consultation with the Chief Justice is man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (b) of the Karnataka Act in the later judgment, it was held as under in paragraph 62: Section 3(2)(a) and (b) when read literally and contextually admits of no doubt that the Governor of the State can appoint Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta only on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister and that the Chief Justice of the High Court is only one of the consultees and his views have no primacy. The Governor, as per the statute, can appoint only on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister and not on the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice or any of the consultees. 16. In the light of the above distinctive features in the Karnataka Act and in the Gujarat Act which have been clearly spelt out in the impugned judgment under review and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
