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.
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
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. RAMANAREPORTABLE
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
