News Updates

Guj HC Dismisses Petition On Delay In Appointment Of New Lokayukta [Read Order]

akanksha jain
25 March 2019 6:41 AM GMT
Guj HC Dismisses Petition On Delay In Appointment Of New Lokayukta [Read Order]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Gujarat High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking direction to the State to make appointment to the post of Gujarat Lokayukta which has been lying vacant since December 11, 2018.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Anant S Dave and Justice Biren Vaishnav dismissed the petition moved by Candravadan Rangildas Dhruv who informed the court that even as Justice DP Buch completed his five-year tenure as the Gujarat Lokayukta on December 11, 2018, the government has failed to make any effort to fill the post which is lying vacant still.

The petitioner also informed the court about the repeat representations made by him in November 2018, to the Governor, the Chief Minister, the Chairman of the Selection Committee (for appointing Lokayukta), the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and a representation made to the Vigilance commissioner and member of the selection committee on January 11, 2019, wherein he called for prompt appointment of Lokayukta who has the important task of dealing with complaints of breach or violations by public servants.

The petitioner said the government failed in taking any action with regard to the appointment and did not respond to his representations.

To buttress his arguments, he also relied on Namit Sharma vs Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court had held in the year 2012 that the selection process should be commenced at least three months prior to the occurrence of the vacancy.

The bench, however, held, "Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, grounds stated in the writ petition and submissions made by the petitioner appearing as party¬in¬person for the urgency of the question to be gone into by this Court, we are of the view that at this stage, we find no material to rely that no procedure whatsoever is undertaken by the authority only because reply is not given. It cannot be presumed that no process is initiated by concerned authorities.

"On the contrary, what appears from the communication is that at different levels replies were given to the petitioner and appropriate information was given by such authorities. At this stage, we find no justification to entertain this petition." 

Read the Order Here

Next Story