- (1.) This appeal by certificate involves the question as to the constitutionality of a notification issued by the President of India on May 27, 1976 which reads thus : "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased transfer Shri Justice Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth, Judge of the High Court of Gujarat as Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office."
(2.) By a foot-note, Justice Sheth was "requested to take charge of his duties in the Andhra Pradesh High Court within four weeks from the date of the notification. The notification was issued by the Government of India in its Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Department of Justice.
(3.) Mr. Sheth complied with the order of transfer and assumed charge of his office as a Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court but before doing so, he filed a Writ Petition, 911 of 1976, in the Gujarat High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the notification on the following grounds : (i) The order was passed without his consent: such consent must be necessarily implied in Article 222(1) of the Constitution and therefore the transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another High Court without his consent is unconstitutional; (ii) The order was passed in breach of the assurance given on behalf of the Government of India by the then Law Minister Shri A.K. Sen who, while moving the Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, 1963 said in the Lok Sabha that "so far as High Court Judges were concerned, they should not .be trans ferred excepting by consent". Mr. Sheth having accepted judgeship of the Gujarat High Court on April 23, 1%9 on the faith of the Law Minister's assurance, the Government of India was bound by that assurance on the doctrine of promissory estoppel; (iii) The order of transfer mitigated against public interest. The power conferred by Article 222(1) was conditioned by the existence and requirement of pub lic interest, and since the impugned transfer was not shown to have been made in public interest, it was ultra vires; and (iv) The order was passed without effective consultation with the Chief Justice of India. 'Consultation' in Article 222(1) means "effective consultation" and since the precondition of Article 222(1) that no transfer can be made without such consultation was not fulfilled, the order was bad and of no effect.;