advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution deals with the State Legislature. Article 168 relates to constitution of Legislatures in States and Art.212, 252- New Government passed amendment bill extending the term of office from 6 to 8 years under Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 (for short “the Amendment Act”) - Challenged on the ground that it was made for the purpose JUSTICE N.K. MEHROTRA WHO TERM WAS COMPLETED ON 15-3-2012 AND HIS CONTINUATION WAS ALSO CHALLENGED - Apex court held that Article 252 also shows that under the Constitution the matters of procedure do not render invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the President or the Governor, as the case may be. Inasmuch as the Bill in question was a Money Bill, the contrary contention by the petitioner against the passing of the said Bill by the Legislative Assembly alone is unacceptable. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that Respondent No. 2 is duly holding the office of Lokayukta, U.P. under a valid law enacted by the competent legislature, viz., the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up- Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012. However, we direct the State to take all endeavors for selecting the new incumbent for the office of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas as per the provisions of the Act preferably within a period of six months from today.= Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui .... Petitioner (s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .... Respondent(s) =2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41456

Chapter III of Part VI  of  the  Constitution  deals  with  the  State Legislature.   Article  168  relates  to  constitution  of  Legislatures  in States and Art.212, 252- New Government passed amendment bill extending the term of office from 6 to 8 years under Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012  (for short  “the  Amendment  Act”) - Challenged on the ground that it was made for the purpose JUSTICE N.K. MEHROTRA WHO TERM WAS COMPLETED ON 15-3-2012 AND HIS CONTINUATION WAS ALSO CHALLENGED - Apex court held that  Article 252 also shows that under the Constitution the matters of procedure  do  not render invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the President  or the Governor, as the case may be.  Inasmuch as the Bill in  question  was  a Money Bill, the contrary contention by the petitioner  against  the  passing of the said Bill by the Legislative Assembly alone is unacceptable.  In the light of the above discussion, we hold that  Respondent  No.  2 is duly holding the office of Lokayukta, U.P. under a valid law  enacted  by the competent  legislature,  viz.,  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 as amended by  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up- Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012.   However, we direct  the  State  to  take all endeavors for selecting the new incumbent for the  office  of  Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas as per the provisions  of  the  Act  preferably  within  a period of six months from today.=

writ  of  quo  warranto
against Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Lokayukta for the State of  Uttar
Pradesh,  Respondent  No.  2  herein,  for  continuing  as  Lokayukta  after
15.03.2012.  The petitioner is also challenging the constitutional  validity
of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012  (for
short  “the  Amendment  Act”)  to  the  extent  being  ultra  vires  to  the
provisions of the Constitution of India.=

b)   Section 5(1) of the Act provides that the  term  for  which  Lokayukta
shall hold office is six years from the date on which  he  enters  upon  his
office.  Further, Section 5(3) provides that on ceasing to hold office,  the
Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta  shall  be  ineligible  for  further  appointment,
whether as a Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta or in any other  capacity  under  the
Government of Uttar Pradesh.  Respondent No. 2 completed  his  term  of  six
years on 15.03.2012.

(c)   On 15.03.2012, the new  government  formed  after  the  Uttar  Pradesh
State Assembly elections.  On the same day, an Ordinance  for  amending  the
Act was passed by the Cabinet and sent to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh  for
assent.  However, the same did not receive the assent of the Governor.

(d)   On 18.03.2012, another Ordinance on the same subject matter  was  sent
for the assent of the  Governor  and  after  receiving  the  assent  of  the
Governor, the same was published which came  into  effect  from  22.03.2012.
Under the said Ordinance, Section 5(1) of the Act was amended and  the  term
of the Lokayukta was extended to eight years with effect from 15.03.2012.

(e)   Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 – State of Uttar  Pradesh  enacted  the
Amendment Act which received the assent of the Governor on  06.07.2012.   By
the said Amendment Act, the term of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta  was
extended from six years to eight years or till  the  successor  enters  upon
his office. The said Amendment Act also seeks to limit the ineligibility  of
the  Lokayuktas’  or  Up-Lokayuktas’  for  further  appointment  under   the
Government of Uttar Pradesh only on ceasing to hold office as such, and  for
making the said provisions  applicable  to  the  sitting  Lokayukta  or  Up-
Lokayukta, as the case may be, on the  date  of  commencement  of  the  said
ordinance, i.e., 15.03.2012.=
Conclusion 
  Chapter III of Part VI  of  the  Constitution  deals  with  the  State
Legislature.   Article  168  relates  to  constitution  of  Legislatures  in
States.  The  said  Article  makes  it  clear  that  the  State  Legislature
consists of the Governor,  the  Legislative  Assembly  and  the  Legislative
Council.  After the Governor’s assent to a Bill, the consequent Act  is  the
Act of the State Legislature without any distinction between its Houses,  as
projected by the  petitioner.   We  have  also  gone  through  the  original
records placed by the State and we are satisfied that there is no  infirmity
in passing of the Bill and the enactment of the Amendment  Act,  as  claimed
by the petitioner.

40)   Though it is claimed that  the  Amendment  Act  could  not  have  been
enacted by passing the Bill as a Money Bill because the Act was not  enacted
by passing the Bill as a Money Bill, as rightly pointed  out,  there  is  no
such rule that if the Bill in a case of an original  Act  was  not  a  Money
Bill, no subsequent Bill for amendment of the original Act can  be  a  Money
Bill.  It is brought to our notice that the Act has been amended earlier  by
the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 1988 and the same  was
enacted by passing the Money Bill.  By  the  said  Amendment  Act  of  1988,
Section 5(1) of the Act  was  amended  to  provide  that  the  term  of  the
Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta shall be six years instead of five years.

41)   With regard to giving effect to the Amendment Act retrospectively,  as
rightly pointed out by the State, a deeming  clause/legal  fiction  must  be
given full effect and shall  be  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion.   As
observed in K. Kamaraja Nadar vs. Kunju Thevar AIR 1958 SC 687,  the  effect
of a legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would  not  obtain  is
deemed to obtain under those circumstances.  
The  materials  placed  clearly
show that the Amendment Act has been  enacted  by  a  competent  legislature
with legislative intent to provide a term of eight years  to  Lokayukta  and
Up-Lokayukta, whether present or future, to ensure effective  implementation
of the Act.  We are also satisfied that the aforesaid extension of the  term
of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta from six years to eight years is a  matter  of
legislative policy and it cannot be narrowed down by saying  that  the  same
was enacted only for the benefit of Respondent No. 2.

42)   As discussed above, the decision of the  Speaker  of  the  Legislative
Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money Bill is final  and  the  said
decision cannot be disputed nor can the procedure of the  State  Legislature
be questioned by virtue of Article 212.  Further, as noted earlier,  Article
252 also shows that under the Constitution the matters of procedure  do  not
render invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the President  or
the Governor, as the case may be.  Inasmuch as the Bill in  question  was  a
Money Bill, the contrary contention by the petitioner  against  the  passing
of the said Bill by the Legislative Assembly alone is unacceptable.

43)   In the light of the above discussion, we hold that  Respondent  No.  2
is duly holding the office of Lokayukta, U.P. under a valid law  enacted  by
the competent  legislature,  viz.,  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-
Lokayuktas Act, 1975 as amended by  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-
Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012.   However, we direct  the  State  to  take
all endeavors for selecting the new incumbent for the  office  of  Lokayukta
and Up-Lokayuktas as per the provisions  of  the  Act  preferably  within  a
period of six months from today.

44)   Under these circumstances, all the writ petitions filed under  Article
32 of the Constitution of  India  before  this  Court  are  dismissed.   The
appeal filed by the State of U.P.  and  the  T.C.(C)  No.  74  of  2013  are
disposed of on the above terms. 
 Inasmuch as  we  have  not  gone  into  the
merit of the decisions taken by Respondent No. 2 –  Lokayukta,  the  matters
questioning  those  decisions  which  are  pending  in  the  High  Court  of
Judicature at Allahabad/Lucknow Bench are to be disposed  of  on  merits  in
the light of the above conclusion  upholding  the  Amendment  Act  of  2012.
Accordingly, the transfer petitions are disposed of.
2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41456
P SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA
                                      REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION


                   1 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 410 OF 2012


Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui                        .... Petitioner (s)

            Versus

State of U.P. and Another                         .... Respondent(s)

                                      2


                                   3 WITH


4


                   5 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 289 OF 2013


                   6 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 228 OF 2012


                7 CIVIL APPEAL NO.     4853           OF 2014


                       8 [@SLP (C) NO. 27319 OF 2012]


                          9 T.C.(C) NO. 74 OF 2013


                    10 T.P. (C) NOS. 1228 & 1230 OF 2012


                    11 T.P. (C) NOS. 1248 & 1250 OF 2012


                        12 T.P. (C) NO. 1425 OF 2012


                     13 T.P. (C) NOS. 1412-1413 OF 2012



                               J U D G M E N T


P.Sathasivam, CJI.

Writ Petition (C) No. 410 of 2012

1)        The above writ petition, under Article 32 of the  Constitution  of
India, has been filed by the petitioner  seeking  a  writ  of  quo  warranto
against Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Lokayukta for the State of  Uttar
Pradesh,  Respondent  No.  2  herein,  for  continuing  as  Lokayukta  after
15.03.2012.  The petitioner is also challenging the constitutional  validity
of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012  (for
short  “the  Amendment  Act”)  to  the  extent  being  ultra  vires  to  the
provisions of the Constitution of India.

2)    Brief facts:

(a)   Mr. Justice N.K.  Mehrotra  (retd.),  Respondent  No.  2  herein,  was
appointed as Lokayukta for the State of Uttar Pradesh  on  16.03.2006  under
the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas  Act,  1975  (for  short  “the
Act”).

(b)   Section 5(1) of the Act provides that the  term  for  which  Lokayukta
shall hold office is six years from the date on which  he  enters  upon  his
office.  Further, Section 5(3) provides that on ceasing to hold office,  the
Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta  shall  be  ineligible  for  further  appointment,
whether as a Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta or in any other  capacity  under  the
Government of Uttar Pradesh.  Respondent No. 2 completed  his  term  of  six
years on 15.03.2012.

(c)   On 15.03.2012, the new  government  formed  after  the  Uttar  Pradesh
State Assembly elections.  On the same day, an Ordinance  for  amending  the
Act was passed by the Cabinet and sent to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh  for
assent.  However, the same did not receive the assent of the Governor.

(d)   On 18.03.2012, another Ordinance on the same subject matter  was  sent
for the assent of the  Governor  and  after  receiving  the  assent  of  the
Governor, the same was published which came  into  effect  from  22.03.2012.
Under the said Ordinance, Section 5(1) of the Act was amended and  the  term
of the Lokayukta was extended to eight years with effect from 15.03.2012.

(e)   Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 – State of Uttar  Pradesh  enacted  the
Amendment Act which received the assent of the Governor on  06.07.2012.   By
the said Amendment Act, the term of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta  was
extended from six years to eight years or till  the  successor  enters  upon
his office. The said Amendment Act also seeks to limit the ineligibility  of
the  Lokayuktas’  or  Up-Lokayuktas’  for  further  appointment  under   the
Government of Uttar Pradesh only on ceasing to hold office as such, and  for
making the said provisions  applicable  to  the  sitting  Lokayukta  or  Up-
Lokayukta, as the case may be, on the  date  of  commencement  of  the  said
ordinance, i.e., 15.03.2012.

(f)   Challenging the said Amendment Act, the petitioner  is  before  us  by
way of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

3)    Similar prayers have been made by the petitioners  in  Writ  Petitions
(C) Nos. 228 of 2012 and 289 of 2013.  Similar petitions were also filed  in
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.  In view  of  the  similarity  of
the issues involved in these petitions, transfer petitions, viz.,  T.P.  (C)
Nos. 1228 & 1230 of 2012, T.P. (C) Nos. 1248 & 1250 of 2012,  T.P.  (C)  No.
1425 of 2012 and T.P. (C) Nos. 1412-1413 of  2012  have  been  filed  before
this  Court.   However,  T.P.(C)  No.  1229  of  2012  was  directed  to  be
transferred to this Court by an order  dated  01.02.2013  and,  accordingly,
the same is numbered as T.C.(C) No. 74 of 2013.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.27319 of 2012

4)    Leave granted in Special Leave Petition.

5)    This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.08.2012  passed  by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature  at  Allahabad  in  Civil
Misc. Writ Petition  No.  24905  of  2012  whereby  the  High  Court,  while
allowing the amendment application to the  writ  petition  and  holding  the
writ  petition  to  be  maintainable,  directed  to  list  the  petition  on
27.09.2012 for hearing on merits.

6)    By way of the said amendment application, the writ  petitioner  sought
to add two grounds  in  the  writ  petition,  viz.,  the  Amendment  Act  is
violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and  the  same  was
wrongly introduced as a Money Bill in clear disregard to the  provisions  of
Article 199 of the Constitution of India.  Accordingly,  it  was  prayed  to
issue a writ, order or direction in the nature  of  mandamus  declaring  the
Amendment Act as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.

7)    Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 27.08.2012, the  State
of U.P. has filed the afore-said appeal by way of special leave.

8)     By  an  order  dated  24.09.2012,  this  Court  stayed  the   further
proceedings in CMWP No. 24905 of 2012.

9)    Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for  the  petitioners
in W.P.(C) Nos. 228 and 410 of 2012,  Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Dr. Abhishek  Manu
Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  Dr.
Rajeev  Dhawan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  Mr.  Justice  N.K.  Mehrotra
(retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein in W.P.(C) Nos. 228 and 410 of 2012.

Contentions:

10)   Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  petitioner,
submitted that, by way of the Amendment Act,  the  State  of  U.P.  has,  in
substance and effect, reappointed Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.),  Respondent
No. 2 herein, as Lokayukta of the State of  U.P.  notwithstanding  the  fact
that his six years’ term had already expired  on  15.03.2012.   There  is  a
statutory bar against  the  reappointment  of  the  Lokayukta  in  terms  of
Section 5(3) of the Act.

11)   Mr. Venugopal further submitted that by  passing  the  Amendment  Act,
the State Government handpicked a person who they believe would ensure  that
the  Chief  Minister,  his  Ministers  and  political  supporters  would  be
protected, despite the acts of corruption in which they may indulge in.  The
reappointment of Justice Mehrotra (retd.), who had demitted the  office  and
was prohibited from holding any post, bypassed the safeguards  contained  in
Section 3 of the Act, which stands unamended.

12)   It was further submitted that the Amendment Act was  not  even  passed
by  the  State  Legislature  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of   the
Constitution of India and is, thus, a mere scrap of paper  in  the  eyes  of
law.  The Bill in question was presented as a Money Bill when, on  the  face
of it, it could never be called as a  Money  Bill  as  defined  in  Articles
199(1) and 199(2) of the Constitution of India.  Since the procedure for  an
Ordinary Bill was not followed and the assent of the Governor  was  obtained
to an inchoate and incomplete Bill which  had  not  even  gone  through  the
mandatory requirements under the Constitution of India,  the  entire  action
was unconstitutional and violative of Article 200  of  the  Constitution  of
India.

13)   Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned senior counsel  for  the  State  of  U.P.,
submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable  in  law  or  on
facts.  In the absence  of  any  violation  of  fundamental  rights  of  the
petitioner himself, the present  writ  petition  under  Article  32  is  not
maintainable.  Moreover, the present writ petition has not been  filed  with
clean hands.  Mr. Desai pointed out that the petitioner has  merely  stated,
in a passing manner, that he is a practicing Advocate, which is not  a  fair
and candid statement.  The petitioner has  filed  the  writ  petition  as  a
proxy of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui,  ex-Cabinet  Minister,  U.P.  (presently
the  Leader  of  Bahujan  Samaj  Party/Leader  of  Opposition  in  the  U.P.
Legislative Council), against whom, along with others, Respondent No. 2  has
recommended action on grave charges of corruption.  The  petitioner  herein,
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui, was the agent/representative (pairokar) of the son  of
Shri  Naseemuddin  Siddiqui  in  the  complaint  against  Shri   Naseemuddin
Siddiqui before  Respondent  No.  2  and  he  has  filed  the  present  writ
petition, as also his earlier writ petition, as a proxy of Shri  Naseemuddin
Siddiqui.

14)   It was further submitted that the petitioner, for oblique motives,  is
questioning  the  valid  legislative  and  executive  actions.    The   writ
petition, which has been filed  under  the  guise  of  redressing  a  public
grievance, is lacking in bona fides and is an outcome  of  malice  and  ill-
will, which the petitioner nurses against Respondent No. 2  for  making  the
reports specifically  those  against  Shri  Naseemuddin  Siddiqui.   In  the
present writ petition as also in his earlier writ petition,  the  petitioner
has  made  yet  another  collateral  attack  by  questioning  the  title  of
Respondent No.  2  to  the  office  of  Lokayukta  in  order  to  stall  the
action/enquiry in respect of the grave charges of corruption that  has  been
ordered pursuant to the reports of Respondent No. 2.

15)   Besides, learned senior counsel  for  the  State  submitted  that  the
petitioner has made a collateral attack by seeking a writ  of  quo  warranto
to enquire by what authority Respondent No. 2 is holding the office  of  the
Lokayukta, Uttar Pradesh and  at  the  same  time,  he  has  challenged  the
validity of that very law under which the Respondent No. 2  is  holding  the
said office, which is impermissible under the settled law. It is  the  stand
of the State that in a  writ  of  quo  warranto,  while  enquiring  by  what
authority a person holds a public office, it  is  impermissible  to  make  a
collateral attack on the validity of law or statutory provision under  which
that office is being held. Thus, the scope of a writ of quo  warranto  is  a
limited one, by virtue of which it may  be  enquired  by  what  authority  a
person holds a public office, but the validity of that authority  cannot  be
questioned. In this light, it is submitted that the  writ  petition  is  not
maintainable for making such a collateral attack.

16)      Mr. Desai also submitted that the Bill in question  was  manifestly
a Money Bill in view  of  Article  199(1)  of  the  Constitution  of  India.
Furthermore, the claim of the petitioner is  barred  by  the  constitutional
provisions, such as Articles 199(3) and 212 of the Constitution.  The  claim
of the petitioner that the Bill was passed only by the Legislative  Assembly
and not by both the Houses, is misconceived.  The petitioner has  overlooked
that since the Bill in question was a Money Bill, therefore, the  contention
that  it  was  passed  by  the  Legislative  Assembly  alone   is   per   se
misconceived.  Finally, Mr. Desai submitted that Respondent No.  2  is  duly
holding the office of the  Lokayukta  under  a  valid  law  enacted  by  the
competent legislature, viz., the Amendment Act.

17)   Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi reiterated the submission made by Mr.  Desai
and also pointed out the relevant provisions.

18)   Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for  Justice  N.K.  Mehrotra
(retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein, reiterated the contentions raised  by  Mr.
Desai.  In addition to the same, it is submitted that the  real  purpose  of
filing the writ petition and other connected matters is to stall  action  on
the reports of Respondent No. 2 in respect of grave  charges  of  corruption
against several ex-Ministers, Government  of  U.P.,  one  of  whom  is  Shri
Naseemuddin Siddiqui, ex-Cabinet Minister, U.P.

19)   Dr. Dhawan further submitted that the petitioner is a  proxy  of  Shri
Naseemuddin Siddiqui.  Further, both Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui and his  wife
were members of the U.P. Legislature when the  Amendment  Act  was  enacted.
Accordingly, any challenge to the said Amendment  Act  by  Shri  Naseemuddin
Siddiqui or his wife would not be maintainable as they, as  sitting  members
of the State Legislature, cannot assail and disown an  action  of  the  same
State Legislature.

20)   Dr. Dhawan submitted that  Respondent  No.  2  was  appointed  as  the
Lokayukta, U.P. on 16.03.2006 and he is continuing as such after  15.03.2012
under a valid law, viz., the Amendment Act, which has been duly  enacted  by
the competent legislature.   It  was  urged  that  the  contentions  of  the
petitioner regarding Money  Bill  is  baseless  and  pointed  out  that  the
earlier two amendments to the Act in the year 1981 and  1988  were  also  by
way of Money Bills, which is concealed by the petitioner.  Further,  it  was
submitted that the finality of the Speaker’s decision  and  the  legislative
process cannot be challenged in a Court of law.

21)   We have carefully considered the rival  contentions  and  perused  all
the relevant materials.


Discussion:

22)   Among all the contentions/issues raised, the  main  challenge  relates
to the validity of U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment)  Act,  2012.
In order to consider the claim of both the parties, it is  useful  to  refer
the relevant provisions.  The State of U.P. has brought an  Act  called  the
U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (U.P. Act 42 of 1975).  The  said
Act was enacted in order to make provision for appointment and functions  of
certain authorities  for  the  investigation  on  grievances  and  elections
against Ministers, legislators and other public servants in  certain  cases.
The Act came into force on 12.07.1977.



23)   Section 2(e) defines ‘Lokayukta’ which reads as under:

      “Lokayukta” means  a  person  appointed  as  the  Lokayukta  and  “Up-
      Lokayukta” means a person appointed as an Up-Lokayukta, under  Section
      3”.

24)   Section 3 relates to appointment of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas  which
reads as under:
      “3. Appointment of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas -
      (1) For the purpose of conducting investigations  in  accordance  with
      the provisions of this Act, the Governor shall, by warrant  under  his
      hand and seal, appoint a person to be known as the Lokayukta  and  one
      or more persons to be known as the Up-Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas:
      Provided that-
      (a) the Lokayukta shall be appointed after consultation with the Chief
      Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Leader of
      the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and if  there  be  no  such
      Leader a  person  elected  in  this  behalf  by  the  members  of  the
      opposition in that House in such manner as the Speaker may direct;
      (b)  the  Up-Lokayukta  or  Up-Lokayuktas  shall  be  appointed  after
      consultation with the Lokayukta:
      Provided further that where the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is
      satisfied that circumstances exist on  account  of  which  it  is  not
      practicable to consult the Leader of the Opposition in accordance with
      clause (a) of the preceding proviso, he may intimate the Governor  the
      name of any other member of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly
      who may be consulted under that clause instead of the  Leader  of  the
      Opposition.
      (2) Every person appointed as the Lokayukta or an  Up-Lokayukta  shall
      before entering  upon  his  office,  make  and  subscribe  before  the
      Governor or some person appointed in that behalf by him,  an  oath  or
      affirmation in the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.


      (3) The Up-Lokayuktas shall be subject to the  administrative  control
      of the Lokayukta and in  particular  for  the  purpose  of  convenient
      disposal of investigations under this Act,  the  Lokayukta  any  issue
      such general or special direction as he may consider necessary to  the
      Up-Lokayukta:
      Provided that nothing  in  this  sub-section  shall  be  construed  to
      authorize  the  Lokayukta  to  question  any  finding  conclusion   or
      recommendation of an Up-Lokayukta.”

25)   Section 5 speaks  about  terms  of  office  and  other  conditions  of
service of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta which reads as under:

      “5. Terms of office and other conditions of service of  Lokayukta  and
      Up-Lokayukta.-
      (1) Every person appointed as the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta shall hold
      office for a term of six years from the date of which he  enters  upon
      his office:
      Provided that,
      (a) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may, by writing  under  his  hand
      addressed to the Governor, resign his office ;


      (b) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may be removed from office in the
      manner specified in section 6.
                         xxx         xxx        xxx
      (3) On ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta  shall
      be ineligible for further employment (Whether as the Lokayukta  or  an
      Up-Lokayukta) or in any other capacity under the Government  of  Uttar
      Pradesh or for any employment  under  or  office  in  any  such  local
      authority corporation. Government, company or society as  is  referred
      to in sub-clause *(v) of clause *(1) of section 2.
      (4) There shall be  paid  to  the  Lokayukta  and  Up-Lokayuktas  such
      salaries as are specified in the Second Schedule.”

26)   Section 20A speaks about salary and allowances which reads as under:
      "20A.  Expenditure to be charged on Consolidated Fund.- It  is  hereby
      declared that the salary, allowances and  pension  payable  to  or  in
      Expenditure to be respect of the Lokayukta or the  Up-Lokayuktas,  the
      charged on expenditure relating to their staff and  office  and  other
      consolidated expenditure in respect of the implementation of this  Act
      shall be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State  of
      Uttar Pradesh."

27)   It is highlighted by the State that under the said Act,  Justice  N.K.
Mehrotra (retd.) was  appointed  as  a  Lokayukta  vide  notification  dated
09.03.2006.  It is also highlighted that since the term of Justice  Mehrotra
(retd.) was expired on 15.03.2012 after the completion of the period of  six
years under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the  said  Act
and no decision had been taken for the appointment of another person as  the
Lokayukta and also taking note of  the  fact  that  since  the  decision  to
appoint another person would take time, it has been  decided  to  amend  the
said Act to provide for increasing the term of  Lokayukta  and  Up-Lokayukta
from six years to eight years or till his successor enters upon his  office.
 Initially, the State Government  promulgated  an  Ordinance,  namely,  U.P.
Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 (U.P.  Ordinance  No.
1 of 2012).  The same was replaced by the Act, namely,  U.P.  Lokayukta  and
Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 (U.P. Act 4 of 2012).  As per  the  said
ordinance and Act, the amendment relating to Section 2 shall  be  deemed  to
have come into force on 15.03.2012 and the remaining provisions  shall  come
into force at once.  It is also relevant to refer the amendments brought  in
by this Amendment Act, which are as under:

      “Amendment of Section 5 of U.P. Act No. 42 of 1975

      2.    In Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-Lokayuktas
      Act, 1975 hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act.-

      (a) for sub-section (1) the following sub-section shall be substituted
      and be deemed to have been substituted on March 15, 2012 namely:-

      “(1) Every person appointed as the  Lokayukta  or  Up-Lokayukta  shall
      hold office for a term of eight years from the date on which he enters
      upon his office:

      Provided that the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall,  notwithstanding
      the expiration of his term continue to hold office until his successor
      enters upon his office.

      Provided further that,-

      (a) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may, by writing  under  his  hand
      addressed to the Governor, resign his office:

      (b) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may be removed from office in the
      manner specified in Section 6.”

      (b)    for  sub-section  (3)  the  following  sub-section   shall   be
      substituted and be deemed to have been substituted on March  15,  2012
      namely:-

      “(3) On ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall
      be ineligible for further employment under  the  Government  of  Uttar
      Pradesh”

      (c) After sub-section (5) the following sub-section shall be inserted,
      namely:-

      “(6) The amendment  made  by  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-
      Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 shall be applicable  to  the  sitting
      Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas  as  the  case  may  be,  on  the  date  of
      commencement of the said Act.”

Amendment of Section 13

      “(5-b) After the investigation of any allegation under  this  Act,  if
      the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayukta is satisfied that such investigation
      has resulted in injustice or caused defamation to the concerned public
      servants, he may on their application,  award  compensation  recording
      reasons therefore not exceeding the maximum amount of the cost, out of
      the cost as imposed on the complainant under sub-section (5-a) to such
      public servant, who has suffered any loss by reason  of  injustice  or
      defamation, and such compensation shall be charged on the Consolidated
      Fund of the State.”

Amendment of Section 20-A

      “For section 20-A of the principal Act, the following section shall be
      substituted, namely:-

      “20-A.  It is hereby declared that  the  salary,  allowances  and  the
      pensions payable to  or  in  respect  of  the  Lokayukta  or  the  Up-
      Lokayuktas, the expenditure relating to their staff and office and the
      amount of compensation awarded to the Public Servant under sub-section
      (5-b) of section 13 by reason of injustice  or  defamation  and  other
      expenditure, in respect of implementation of the  provisions  of  this
      Act, shall be an expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund  of  the
      State.”

28)   We have already noted the object of bringing  the  ordinance  and  the
Act for amendment of certain provisions.  In  order  to  further  understand
the intention of the Government for bringing such amendment,  it  is  useful
to refer the statement of “objects and reasons”, which is as under:

      “Statement of objects and reasons:-

      The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (U.P. Act  no.
      42 of 1`975) has been enacted to make provision  for  the  appointment
      and functions of certain authorities for the investigation  grievances
      and  allegations  against  minister,  Legislators  and  other   public
      servants in certain cases.  Under the said Act  Shri  Narendra  Kishor
      Mehrotra was appointed as Lokayukta vide notification no. 40 Lo.Aa/39-
      4-2006-15(5) 2006, dated March  9,  2006  from  the  date  he  resumes
      office.  Shri Mehrotra resumed his office after taking oath  on  March
      16, 2006.  The term of Shri Mehrotra as such was expired on March  15,
      2012 after the completion of the period of six years  under  the  then
      provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of  the  said  Act  and  no
      decision had been taken for the appointment of another person  as  the
      Lokayukta.  Since the decision to appoint another  person  would  take
      time, it has been decided  to  amend  the  said  Act  to  provide  for
      increasing the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas from six  years  to
      eight years or till his successor enters upon his office, to limit the
      ineligibility  of  the  Lokayukta   or   Up-Lokayuktas   for   further
      appointment under the Government of Uttar Pradesh only on  ceasing  to
      hold office as such and for making the said provisions  applicable  to
      the sitting Lokayukta or UP-Lokayuktas as the case may  be,  on  March
      15, 2012.

           Since the State Legislature was not  in  session  and  immediate
      Legislative action was necessary, the Uttar Pradehs Lokayukta  or  Up-
      Lokayuktas (Amendment) Ordinance, 2012 (U.P. Ordinance No. 1 of  2012)
      was promulgated by the Governor on March 22, 2012.”

29)   Though elaborate arguments have been made by  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal  as
well as Mr. Desai about the merits  of  the  various  recommendations/orders
passed by Respondent No. 2 - Lokayukta in respect of  former  Ministers  and
persons connected with the government in these  matters,  we  are  primarily
concerned about the  validity  of  the  Amendment  Act  and  continuance  of
Respondent No. 2 as Lokayukta even after expiry of his term.

30)   The main apprehension of the petitioner is that the Bill that  led  to
the enactment of the Amendment Act was passed as a Money Bill  in  violation
of Articles 197 and 198 of the Constitution of India which should have  been
passed by  both  the  Houses,  viz.,  U.P.  Legislative  Assembly  and  U.P.
Legislative Council and was wrongly passed  only  by  the  U.P.  Legislative
Assembly.  During the course of hearing, Mr. Desai, learned  senior  counsel
appearing for the State of U.P., placed the original records  pertaining  to
the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly,  decision  of  the  Speaker  as
well as the Governor, which we are going to discuss in  the  later  part  of
our judgment.

31)   Article 199 of the Constitution defines “Money Bills”, which reads  as
under:
      “199 - Definition of "Money Bills"

      (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to  be  a
      Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or  any  of
      the following matters, namely:--


      (a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation  of
      any tax;


      (b) the regulation of the borrowing of money  or  the  giving  of  any
      guarantee by the State, or the amendment of the law  with  respect  to
      any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the State;


      (c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the  Contingency  Fund  of
      the State, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from
      any such Fund;


      (d) the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated  Fund  of  the
      State;


      (e) the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on  the
      Consolidated Fund of the State, or the increasing of the amount of any
      such expenditure;


      (f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated  Fund  of  the
      State or the public account of the State or the custody  or  issue  of
      such money; or


      (g) any matter incidental to any of  the  matters  specified  in  sub-
      clauses (a) to (f).


      (2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason only  that
      it provides for the imposition of fines or other pecuniary  penalties,
      or for the demand or payment of fees for licences or fees for services
      rendered, or by reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition,
      remission, alteration or regulation of any tax by any local  authority
      or body for local purposes.


      (3)  If  any  question  arises  whether  a  Bill  introduced  in   the
      Legislature of a State which has a Legislative Council is a Money Bill
      or not, the decision of the Speaker of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of
      such State thereon shall be final.


      (4) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is transmitted
      to the Legislative Council under article 198, and when it is presented
      to the Governor for assent under article 200, the certificate  of  the
      Speaker of the Legislative Assembly signed by him that it is  a  Money
      Bill.”






32)   It is also useful to refer Article 212 which reads as under:

      “212 - Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature


      (1) The validity of any proceedings in  the  Legislature  of  a  State
      shall not  be  called  in  question  on  the  ground  of  any  alleged
      irregularity of procedure.


      (2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom  powers
      are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating  procedure  or
      the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the  Legislature
      shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in  respect  of  the
      exercise by him of those powers.”


33)   The above provisions make it clear that the finality of  the  decision
of the Speaker and the proceedings of the State Legislature being  important
privilege of the State Legislature, viz.,  freedom  of  speech,  debate  and
proceedings are not to be inquired by the Courts.  The  “proceeding  of  the
Legislature” includes everything  said  or  done  in  either  House  in  the
transaction of the Parliamentary Business, which  in  the  present  case  is
enactment of the Amendment Act. Further, Article 212  precludes  the  Courts
from interfering with the presentation of a Bill for assent to the  Governor
on the ground of non-compliance with the procedure  for  passing  Bills,  or
from otherwise questioning the Bills passed by the House.  To put it  clear,
proceedings inside the Legislature cannot be called  into  question  on  the
ground that they have not been carried on in accordance with  the  Rules  of
Business.  This is also evident from Article  194  which  speaks  about  the
powers, privileges of the House of  Legislatures  and  of  the  members  and
committees thereof.

34)   We have already quoted Article 199.  In terms of Article  199(3),  the
decision of the Speaker  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  that  the  Bill  in
question was a Money Bill is final and the said decision cannot be  disputed
nor can the procedure of  State  Legislature  be  questioned  by  virtue  of
Article 212.  We are conscious of the fact that  in  the  decision  of  this
Court in Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha and Others (2007) 3  SCC
184, it has been held that the proceedings which may be tainted  on  account
of  substantive  or  gross  irregularity  or  unconstitutionality  are   not
protected from judicial scrutiny.

35)   Even if it is  established  that  there  was  some  infirmity  in  the
procedure in the enactment of the Amendment Act, in terms of Article 255  of
the Constitution the matters of procedures do not render invalid an  Act  to
which assent has been given to by the President  or  the  Governor,  as  the
case may be.

36)   In the case of M.S.M. Sharma vs. Shree Krishna Sinha AIR 1960 SC  1186
and Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. State of Mysore and  Another  AIR  1963
SC 589, the Constitution Benches of this Court held that  (i)  the  validity
of an Act cannot be challenged on the ground that it  offends  Articles  197
to 199 and the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  202;  (ii)  Article  212
prohibits the validity of any proceedings in a Legislature of a  State  from
being called in question on  the  ground  of  any  alleged  irregularity  of
procedure; and (iii) Article 255 lays  down  that  the  requirements  as  to
recommendation and previous sanction are to  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of
procedure only.  It is further held that the  validity  of  the  proceedings
inside the Legislature of a State  cannot  be  called  in  question  on  the
allegation that the procedure laid down by the law  has  not  been  strictly
followed and that no Court can go into those questions which are within  the
special jurisdiction of the Legislature  itself,  which  has  the  power  to
conduct its own business.

37)   Besides, the question whether a Bill is a Money Bill  or  not  can  be
raised only in the State Legislative Assembly by a member thereof  when  the
Bill is pending in the State Legislature and before it becomes an  Act.   It
is brought to our notice that in the instant case no such question was  ever
raised by anyone.

38)   Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior  counsel  for  the  petitioner  has
also raised another  contention  that  the  Bill  was  passed  only  by  the
Legislative Assembly and not by both the Houses.  In other words,  according
to him, it was not passed by the Legislative  Council  and,  therefore,  the
Amendment Act is bad.

39)   Chapter III of Part VI  of  the  Constitution  deals  with  the  State
Legislature.   Article  168  relates  to  constitution  of  Legislatures  in
States.  The  said  Article  makes  it  clear  that  the  State  Legislature
consists of the Governor,  the  Legislative  Assembly  and  the  Legislative
Council.  After the Governor’s assent to a Bill, the consequent Act  is  the
Act of the State Legislature without any distinction between its Houses,  as
projected by the  petitioner.   We  have  also  gone  through  the  original
records placed by the State and we are satisfied that there is no  infirmity
in passing of the Bill and the enactment of the Amendment  Act,  as  claimed
by the petitioner.

40)   Though it is claimed that  the  Amendment  Act  could  not  have  been
enacted by passing the Bill as a Money Bill because the Act was not  enacted
by passing the Bill as a Money Bill, as rightly pointed  out,  there  is  no
such rule that if the Bill in a case of an original  Act  was  not  a  Money
Bill, no subsequent Bill for amendment of the original Act can  be  a  Money
Bill.  It is brought to our notice that the Act has been amended earlier  by
the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 1988 and the same  was
enacted by passing the Money Bill.  By  the  said  Amendment  Act  of  1988,
Section 5(1) of the Act  was  amended  to  provide  that  the  term  of  the
Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta shall be six years instead of five years.

41)   With regard to giving effect to the Amendment Act retrospectively,  as
rightly pointed out by the State, a deeming  clause/legal  fiction  must  be
given full effect and shall  be  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion.   As
observed in K. Kamaraja Nadar vs. Kunju Thevar AIR 1958 SC 687,  the  effect
of a legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would  not  obtain  is
deemed to obtain under those circumstances.  The  materials  placed  clearly
show that the Amendment Act has been  enacted  by  a  competent  legislature
with legislative intent to provide a term of eight years  to  Lokayukta  and
Up-Lokayukta, whether present or future, to ensure effective  implementation
of the Act.  We are also satisfied that the aforesaid extension of the  term
of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta from six years to eight years is a  matter  of
legislative policy and it cannot be narrowed down by saying  that  the  same
was enacted only for the benefit of Respondent No. 2.

42)   As discussed above, the decision of the  Speaker  of  the  Legislative
Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money Bill is final  and  the  said
decision cannot be disputed nor can the procedure of the  State  Legislature
be questioned by virtue of Article 212.  Further, as noted earlier,  Article
252 also shows that under the Constitution the matters of procedure  do  not
render invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the President  or
the Governor, as the case may be.  Inasmuch as the Bill in  question  was  a
Money Bill, the contrary contention by the petitioner  against  the  passing
of the said Bill by the Legislative Assembly alone is unacceptable.

43)   In the light of the above discussion, we hold that  Respondent  No.  2
is duly holding the office of Lokayukta, U.P. under a valid law  enacted  by
the competent  legislature,  viz.,  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-
Lokayuktas Act, 1975 as amended by  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-
Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012.   However, we direct  the  State  to  take
all endeavors for selecting the new incumbent for the  office  of  Lokayukta
and Up-Lokayuktas as per the provisions  of  the  Act  preferably  within  a
period of six months from today.

44)   Under these circumstances, all the writ petitions filed under  Article
32 of the Constitution of  India  before  this  Court  are  dismissed.   The
appeal filed by the State of U.P.  and  the  T.C.(C)  No.  74  of  2013  are
disposed of on the above terms.  Inasmuch as  we  have  not  gone  into  the
merit of the decisions taken by Respondent No. 2 –  Lokayukta,  the  matters
questioning  those  decisions  which  are  pending  in  the  High  Court  of
Judicature at Allahabad/Lucknow Bench are to be disposed  of  on  merits  in
the light of the above conclusion  upholding  the  Amendment  Act  of  2012.
Accordingly, the transfer petitions are disposed of.


                                  .…….…………………………CJI.


                                       (P. SATHASIVAM)






                                    ………….…………………………J.


                                      (RANJAN GOGOI)




















                                  ………….…………………………J.


                                      (N.V. RAMANA)


NEW DELHI;
APRIL 24, 2014.
-----------------------
21


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.