Meaningful High Court consultation is required for tribunal presidency appointments when the tribunal performs court-like adjudicatory functions.

A statutory tribunal exercising appellate and revisional powers, following court-like procedures and deciding disputes with finality, may be treated as akin to a court for constitutional purposes, while still remaining distinct from a court. Because judicial superintendence under Article 227 continues to apply, consultation with the High Court under Article 234 for appointment to the tribunal's Presidency must be real, effective and meaningful, not a mere formality. In that constitutional setting, appointment to the office of President could not proceed without such consultation, and the challenge to the appointment procedure was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is a court for constitutional purposes and whether appointment to its Presidency, in the circumstances of the case, required consultation with the High Court under Article 234 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Tribunal was found to exercise appellate and revisional powers under the statute and allied enactments, to follow procedures akin to a civil court, and to perform adjudicatory functions with finality and authoritativeness. On that basis, it was treated as akin to a court, though the distinction between courts and tribunals was maintained. The Court further noted that judicial superintendence under Article 227 remained available over the Tribunal and that the consultative process under Article 234 must be real, effective and meaningful, not an empty formality. In that constitutional setting, the appointment to the office of President could not be made without the High Court's consultation.

Conclusion: The challenge to the appointment procedure failed and the contention that the High Court's consultation was unnecessary was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory tribunal performs adjudicatory functions akin to a court and remains subject to the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, appointment to its key judicial office must comply with the constitutional consultative requirement in a meaningful manner.

---