ALL INDIA INDEPENDENT LAWYER Vs. S K CHATTOPADHYAY …

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All India Independent Lawyers' Forum, Ranchi Bihar through its President Sri K.. K. Jha 'Kamal', a practising Advocate of this Court has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayar for quashing the warrant of appointment of respondent No. 1 Sri Justice S. K. Chattopadhyaya, a sitting Judge of the Patna High Court. The challenge has been made on the ground that it was illegal and contrary to the well established norms and principles laid down for the appointment of a High Court Judge. It has been further asserted that the appointment is contrary to the procedures and principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri S. P. Gupta 1981 (Suppl.) SCC 85. Further direction has been sought to be issued to respondent No. 1 not perform the functions and duties of the High Court Judge in view of the illegal and unconstitutional appointment and the same being void ab irtitio, until the validity and constitutionality of his appointment is tested by this Court. Further, a writ of quo warranto has been sought for declaring the post held by respondent No. i as vacant.

(2.) This writ application has been filed by the said Forum called All India Independent Lawyer's Forum, as a Public Interest Litigation. Sri K.K. Jha, 'Kamal' a practising Advocate of this Court has appeared in person and in capacity of being the President of the said 'Forum' has raised this contention that the said respondent No. 1 did not satisfy the qualifications prescribed under Article 217 (2) of the Constitution and it was contended, inter alia, whether he is of sufficient matured age which is generally considered a good guide for a sombre approach in the Court of law, has he an unimpeachable integrity, a spotless character, is he a man of reliable habits and what is his equipment in law, does he subscribe to the social philosophy and values enshrine in the Constitution, does he suffer from any insurmountable aberration, does he disclose a capacity to persuade and be persuaded and he a quick quick grasp, a smart intellect a compassionate heart and whether he would have a team spirit.

(3.) Enunciating these points, Sri Jha has drawn our attention to the averments made in various paragraphs of this writ application in order to point out that respondent No, 4, Chief Justice of Patna High Court or the concerned Chief Justice/Chief Justices, who recommended the appointment of respondent No. 1 had no materials either on record or had even personal knowledge based on objective considerations reached dispassionately by them and that: they had acted purely on their subjective consideration. Further, while making such recommendation either respondent No. 4 or the concerned Chief Justice/Chief Justices had not kept in mind the princles of law judicated by the Supreme Court in the case of S, P. Gupta (supra). In support of his argument several paragraphs from the said judgement have been referred to in this writ application and mentioned in order to establish that the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in such matters have not been carried. In other words, it was contended that the materials in pursuance of the aforesaid guideline should be disclosed to the people which formed the materials in pursuance of the aforesaid guideline and which weighed with them in recommending the said respondent No. 1 for the appointment as a High Court Judge.