AMARSINHBHAI BHILABHAI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The petitioner, who was Chief Minister in the State of Gujarat, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order made by His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat on 17th April, 2000 in exercise of powers under Sec. 8(3) of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) . Brief Facts : The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 2397 of 1999, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the decision/approval dated 17th January, 1997 and/or 28th January, 1997, purported to have been given under Sec. 19(3) of the Act as well as the letter dated 15th March, 1999. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent No. 2, the present Lokayukta has a bias against the petitioner, and therefore, the proceedings pending before the Lokayukta should not be allowed to continue. Learned single Judge on 9th July, 1999 admitted the petition and granted interim relief. Against the order passed by the learned single Judge, a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred before the Division Bench, being L.P.A. No. 1080 of 1999. The Division Bench was of the view that the application which was made before His Excellency the Governor cannot be treated as an application under Sec. 8(3) of the Act. The Division Bench considered the provisions contained in Sec. 19 of the Act as also Sec. 8(3) of the Act. Considering the submissions, the Division Bench allowed the appeal. However, it was kept open for the petitioner to move an application under Sec. 8(3) of the Act to His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat. After disposal of the appeal, it appears that an application was made to His Excellency the Governor. A copy of the application dated 15th October, 1999 is placed on record at Annexure 'Z'. It seems that after considering the application in accordance with law and after obtaining the opinion of the Honourable the Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat, His Excellency the Governor, considering the opinion of the Honourable the Chief Justice, passed an order vide Annexure 'A' dated 17th April, 2000 permitting the Lokayukta to proceed with the inquiry and to complete the same as directed, and to keep its report in a sealed cover, awaiting the final decision of the case pending on the judicial side of the High Court of Gujarat. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is preferred. Mr. Vakharia for the petitioner has argued that there is sufficient material on record for coming to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 had a bias against the petitioner. He further submitted that the manner in which the respondent No. 2 is conducting the proceeding, there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 is keeping bias against the petitioner and that looking to the documents on record, especially when the petitioner himself has filed a petition against the respondent No. 2, and respondent No. 2 himself is an adversary litigant against the petitioner. His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat ought to have accepted the say of the petitioner about bias. Mr. Vakharia further argued that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the communication, which was forwarded to the Honourable the Chief Justice for obtaining his opinion. It is also argued that the petitioner has not been supplied a copy of the opinion forwarded by the Honourable the Chief Justice to His Excellency the Governor and that for want of the said material, it is not possible for the petitioner to know as to on what basis and on what material, the decision was taken by His Excellency the Governor, and therefore, the order of His Excellency the Governor is in violation of the principle of natural justice. He further argued that His Excellency the Governor has not given any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) . Against the aforesaid argument, Mr. Shelat, Additional Advocate General, argued that there is no substance so far as this argument of bias is concerned. He further submitted that there was no question of giving copy of the communication which was forwarded to the Honourable the Chief Justice for his opinion. Similarly, there was no question of giving copy of the report of the Honourable the Chief Justice, which was submitted by him to His Excellency the Governor. Mr. Shelat further argued that this Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of His Excellency the Governor and His Excellency the Governor reached the subjective satisfaction, on the material which was placed before him. Accordingly, Mr. Shelat has submitted that there is no merit in this petition. He further argued that the petition is filed to prolong the proceedings before the Lokayukta, and that there is no provision for personal hearing, and therefore, according to him, having no substance, the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.