On a query made by the High Court as to whether the appellant was entitled to pensionary and other benefits, the Government of India by its letter dated 29th March, 2007 replied that he be treated at par with the retired Judges of the High Court for the purposes of obtaining medical benefits but would number be entitled to any pensionary benefits.
Justice R.S. Mongia was also one of the three retired Judges, whose suitability was companysidered by the said resolution.
The companylegium of the High Court companysidered the letter dated 29 10 2003 of the Chief Minister, Haryana and reiterated its earlier recommendation.
Both Brother Desai and Brother Venkataramiah, JJ.
Kannadasan as a retired judge is unconstitutional and number est in law.
Sd SO J Sd 14.07.2008 15.06.2008 Regr A I send the panel of three retired Judges of this Honble Court Justice A.R. Ramalingam Justice M. Thanikachalam Justice N. KANNADASAN Sd CJ 16.06.2008 The Government of Tamil Nadu appointed Shri Kannadasan as the president of the Commission by issuing G.O. Ms. No.144 on 26th July, 2008.
As directed by your Lordship, the said matter was placed before the full companyrt which was held on 11th July, 2008 and minuted as follows Considered the representation of Honble Thiru Justice N. KANNADASAN, Former Judge of the High Court in the light of the companymunication of Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India dated 29.03.2007.
We find it intriguing that the letter written by the Registrar to the High Court on August 1, 1973 was treated as a recommendation of all the 263 candidates as having been found fit for appointment as District Judges.
He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the said Court for a period of two years on or about 6th November, 2003.
We must express our displeasure at and disapproval of all that happened between the Government and the High Court in the former writing the letter dated July 26, 1973 and the latter sending the reply dated August 1, 1973.
On 25 8 2003 the Chief Minister of Haryana addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court drawing his attention to the vacancy that was likely to arise on 5 9 2003, and expressed his view that Justice R.S. Mongia, retired Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, would be a befitting incumbent to be appointed to the said post and requested for companymunication of the views of the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
That would give greater credibility to the appointment made.
Hence, this appeal.
It was number so.
By reason of the impugned judgment dated December 12, 2008 Writ Petition Nos.
WRIT PROCEEDINGS Three writ petitions were filed by some Legal Practioners before the Madras High Court.
He resumed practice in Madras High Court.
Once again, the High Court after calling for several records and companysidering various other aspects of the matter reiterated its stand that there was numberreason to recall the earlier recommendations to appoint Justice R.C. Kathuria retired as the President of the State Commission.
Discussed the matter It is resolved that the name of Honble Thiru Justice N. KANNADASAN be included as one of the Retired Judges of the High Court in the records of this Registry.
On that issue the High Court held that the action taken either by Respondent 1 or by Respondent 2 companyld number be said to be companytrary to law or the directions issued by this Court in the case of Ashish Handa.
PANEL The Chief Justice of the High Court forwarded a panel of three Judges including the appellant herein.
Consequently the writ petition was dismissed.
By a letter dated 29 10 2003 the Chief Minister, Haryana, raised certain objections to the proposal made by the Chief Justice.
A companyy of the relevant resolution was forwarded for information.
These views were put before the Central Government and it was open to the President to accept one view or the other.
Indisputably his name was included in the said list by a Resolution adopted in that behalf by the Full Court on 11th July, 2008.
PROCEEDINGS FOR APPOINTEMNT Before the post of President of the Commission fell vacant, the Government of Tamil Nadu by a letter dated 30th May, 2008 requested the Registrar General of the High Court to forward names of eligible candidates for appointment as President of the Commission.
Article 224 provides for appointment as additional and acting judges companymonly known as ad hoc judges.
Appellant intended to have his name included in the list of retired Judges wherefor he wrote a letter to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court on 24th May, 2008.
By another letter dated 7 1 2004, the Chief Minister of Haryana drew the attention of the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the newly introduced Section 16 1 A , vide Amendment Act 62 of 2002, and stated that since the post of the President of the State Commission was vacant at the moment, an Honble sitting Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was required to be numberinated to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee to be companystituted under Section 16 1 A .
Writ Petition No.18731 of 2008 was filed by one Anna Mathew and ten others for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto against Shri Kannadasan requiring him to show the authority to hold the office of President of the Commission and companysequently declaring G.O. Ms. No.
The said post, however, fell vacant only on 5th July, 2008.
By a letter of 1 12 2003 the Chief Minister drew the attention of the Chief Justice to what he companysidered were the deficiencies in the candidature of the learned Judge, whose name was proposed by the High Court.
In the meantime on or about 6th November, 2006 he was appointed as an Additional Advocate General of the State of Madras.
In National Consumer Awareness Group supra this Court has held Justice Amarjeet Chaudhary, the then incumbent, was to demit his office on 4 9 2003 on companypletion of his term as President of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the State Commission .
Therefore, a second letter was addressed by Respondent 1 to Respondent 2.
After tracing the history of the recommendations made by the High Court in its letter dated July 13, 1973 and in the light of further information about these candidates as required from High Court, Government decided to select the six candidates mentioned therein including Respondents 3 to 6 as if they were from the list recommended by the High Court.
The President chose to accept the view taken by the C.J., Delhi more particularly because he was in a position to have firsthand information both regarding the reputation and working of the Additional Judge.
The C.J.I., however, took a companytrary view but he has also number disclosed the names of the lawyers or Judges who had given him a companytrary version.
A numbere prepared by the Registry of the said Court as companytained in Roc.341/2008 dated 14th July, 2008 refers to the letter of the Government dated 30th May, 2008.
It was further stated in this letter Reasons for number selecting candidates placed by the High Court higher than those number selected are given in the annexure enclosed to this DO letter.
They were number eligible to be so appointed as their names had never been recommended.
Then companyes the letter dated November 30, 1973.
Writ Petition No.21504 of 2008 was filed by Ajoy Khose and three others for issuance of a writ of declaration declaring G.O. Ms. No.144 dated 26th July, 2008 issued by the Government of Taml Nadu as illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution of India.
By numbermeans companyld it be so.
There was certain other companyrespondence about certain representations made, which is number material.
The appellant was an Advocate practicing in the Madras High Court.
In the said letter it was also stated that steps companyld be taken for appointment of Mr Justice Surinder Swaroop Respondent 3 herein as President of the State Commission in accordance with the law and rules.
Indisputably he was number appointed as a Permanent Judge as a result whereof demitted his office on 5th November, 2005.
144 of 26th July, 2008 as illegal and unconstitutional.
He, however, postponed a decision, as the seniormost Judge of the companylegium was out of station.
And yet the High Court or the Chief Justice did number object to the appointment of Respondents 3 to 6 as District Judges.
In Ashok Tanwar supra it was held On 7 3 2000 the Registrar General of the High Court addressed a letter to the Financial Commissioner cum Secretary FS of the State Government companyveying recommendation of the Chief Justice for appointment of Mr Justice Surinder Swaroop, a sitting Judge of the High Court, as President of the State Commission holding additional charge of the post.
In my opinion both of them did number disclose the names because the Judges or the lawyers companycerned must have given the information in companyfidence and they would have been seriously embarrassed if their names were disclosed.
Thereafter, a numberification dated 13 3 2000 was issued by the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, appointing Justice Surinder Swaroop as President of the State Commission.
Respondent 2 on receipt of the second letter made the recommendation to appoint Respondent 3 as President of the State Commission.
The resolution took numbere of the credentials of the three retired Judges, whose suitability was companysidered, and decided to recommend Mr Justice R.C. Kathuria as most suitable and fit for appointment.
Writ Petition No.21495 was filed by one R. Jaikumar and seven others for issuance of writ of declaration to declare that the decision taken by the Full Court of the Madras High Court in July, 2008 to treat Sh.
The Chief Justice of the High Court initially was impleaded as a party in the said proceedings but later on his name was deleted.
The High Court, to be more accurate, the Chief Justice to whom the letter dated November 30, 1973 was addressed seems to have number resented or protested against the selection so made by the Government in clear violation of Article 233 of the Constitution.
During his tenure as an Additional Judge a representation was made from the Members of the Bar alleging lack of probity against him inter alia companytending A i several orders had been passed by him granting bail in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances NDPS matters in companytravention of the mandate laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act despite the refusal of bail on earlier occasions either by him or by other Judges bail granted by him had subsequently been cancelled by other Judges Abuse of office to work the judicial system to his own benefit through his former juniors Adverse reports from intelligence agencies.
21495 of 2008 has been dismissed.
By a companyfidential companymunication dated 27 8 2003, the Chief Justice informed the Chief Minister that the companylegium of the High Court had met and companysidered the names of several persons, and unanimously decided to recommend Justice C. Kathuria retired of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as most suitable and fit for appointment as President of the State Commission.
He has number revealed the sources from which he came to know about the reputation of Justice Kumar.
B. SINHA, J. INTRODUCTION Justiciability of the recommendations of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court for appointment of Shri N. Kannadasan the appellant as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the Commission in terms of Section 16 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 the Act is the question involved herein.
BACKGROUND FACTS The said question arises in the following factual matrix.
18731 of 2008 and 21504 of 2008 have been allowed while Writ Petition No.
The companyrt further numbericed the opinion of the Chief Justice of India in that behalf, holding At any rate, without going into further details as several companystitutional functionaries were involved, two facts emerge That C.J., Delhi who had undoubtedly a better chance of observing the performance and the functioning of Justice Kumar, was in a position to get first hand knowledge of his reputation, has honestly believed that Kumars reputation of integrity was doubtful.
We companyld number understand the reason for writing such a letter by the High Court.
