410 of 2012 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. ,
1228 1230 of 2012, T.P. C Nos.
2 herein in W.P. C Nos.
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.
1 State of Uttar Pradesh enacted the Amendment Act which received the assent of the Governor on 06.07.2012.
228 and 410 of 2012.
In the present writ petition as also in his earlier writ petition, the petitioner has made yet another companylateral attack by questioning the title of Respondent No.
Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior companynsel for the petitioners in W.P. C Nos.
Similar petitions were also filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
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.
Similar prayers have been made by the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos.
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.
T.P. C Nos.
2 companypleted his term of six years on 15.03.2012.
2 to the office of Lokayukta in order to stall the action enquiry in respect of the grave charges of companyruption that has been ordered pursuant to the reports of 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 .
1412 1413 of 2012 have been filed before this Court.
However, T.P. C 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.
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.
On 15.03.2012, the new government formed after the Uttar Pradesh State Assembly elections.
Respondent No.
Subsequently, Respondent No.
1248 1250 of 2012, T.P. C No.
1425 of 2012 and T.P. C Nos.
Writ Petition C No.
Brief facts Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra retd. ,
Respondent No.
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.
228 of 2012 and 289 of 2013.
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.
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.
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.
Civil Appeal SLP C No.27319 of 2012 Leave granted in Special Leave Petition.
Sathasivam, CJI.
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.
24905 of 2012.
By an order dated 24.09.2012, this Court stayed the further proceedings in CMWP No.
Challenging the said Amendment Act, the petitioner is before us by way of writ petition under Article 32 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.
74 of 2013.
By way of the said amendment application, the writ petitioner sought to add two grounds in the writ petition, viz.,
Writ Petition No.
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 companymencement of the said ordinance, i.e., 15.03.2012.
228 and 410 of 2012, Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior companynsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior companynsel for Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra retd. ,
2 herein, for companytinuing as Lokayukta after 15.03.2012.
In view of the similarity of the issues involved in these petitions, transfer petitions, viz.,
Lokayukta for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Respondent No.
However, the same did number receive the assent of the Governor.
The petitioner is also challenging the companystitutional 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.
