LAXMAN RUPCHAND MEGHWANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issues raised in all the three captioned writ applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. However, for the sake of convenience, the Special Criminal Application No. 3734 of 2015 is treated as the lead matter.

(2.) The Government of Gujarat, by order and in the name of the Governor, issued a Notification dated 07.05.2015 and appointed Shri Raghuvir Nandkrishna Pandya, the respondent No. 3 herein, as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor of Vadodara. The question for consideration is: whether the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor in the District of Vadodara was an infraction of Section 24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C. ') and the Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Legal Affairs of the Government Rules, 2009 (for short, 'the Rules 2009 ')? Was he qualified for an appointment as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor - if so - has the mandatory process of consultation as provided under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C., stood followed?

(3.) The applicants of all the three writ applications are residents of Vadodara. They have prayed for a writ of quo warranto removing Shri Raghuvir Pandya from the office of the District Government Pleader (DGP) and Public Prosecutor, Vadodara, as according to them, he is not fit and suitable for the post. It is the case of the writ applicants that appropriate representations were made before the State Government in writing as regards the appointment of Shri Pandya, as the DGP and PP of Vadodara. The case of the writ applicants is that Shri Pandya in the year 2004 was the Public Prosecutor and had conducted a very sensational trial popularly known as the ''Best Bakery Case ''. It is pointed out that the Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh V. State of Gujarat [2004(4) SCC 158] made scathing remarks against Shri Pandya in his capacity as the Public Prosecutor as regards his character, integrity and competency. According to the writ applicants, the scathing remarks passed by the Supreme Court in the above referred case renders Shri Pandya to be totally unfit and unsuitable for the post of the DGP and Public Prosecutor. It is also the case of the writ applicants that there was no effective consultation between the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge as regards the observations of the Supreme Court and also on other vital issues.