JUSTICE K P MOHAPATRA Vs. RAM CHANDRA NAYAK
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on
October 09,2002
K.P.MOHAPATRA
Appellant
VERSUS
RAM CHANDRA NAYAK
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE S C S ASSOCIATION U P NIROTHILAL GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]Cited Judgements :-
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED VS. GOVT. OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-7-55] [REFERRED TO]JANEKERE C KRISHNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2012-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
CHIDANANDA URS B.G. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-8-531] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. YASHPAL GARG & CO [LAWS(J&K)-1999-8-34] [REFERRED]
BRAJESH NARAYAN SHARAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2005-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH SAMAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-8-106] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. H E GOVERNOR OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-1-216] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE (RETD) RAMESH AMRITLAL MEHTA [LAWS(SC)-2013-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2012-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
SACHCHIDANAND GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-1-68] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2016-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH SODHI AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY IN HIS CAPACITY AS VS. H.E. THE GOVERNOR OF GUJARAT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (SINCE DELETED) AND OTHERS [LAWS(GJH)-2012-1-197] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH VS. JANEKERE C. KRISHNA [LAWS(SC)-2013-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.A.MEHTA [LAWS(SC)-2013-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Short question involved in this appeal is - what is the requirement and what meaning could be assigned to 'Consultation' as contemplated under Section 3(1)of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Proviso (a) to Section 3(1) of the Act prescribes that the Government shall appoint Lokpal after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa and the Leader of the Opposition, if there is any.
(3.)In a Public Interest Litigation filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 14728 of 1996, by judgment and order dated 21-9-2001, the High Court of Orissa set aside the appointment of appellant as Lokpal on the ground that there was no effective consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
(2.)Short question involved in this appeal is - what is the requirement and what meaning could be assigned to 'Consultation' as contemplated under Section 3(1)of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Proviso (a) to Section 3(1) of the Act prescribes that the Government shall appoint Lokpal after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa and the Leader of the Opposition, if there is any.
(3.)In a Public Interest Litigation filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 14728 of 1996, by judgment and order dated 21-9-2001, the High Court of Orissa set aside the appointment of appellant as Lokpal on the ground that there was no effective consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.