https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171998 Review was sought against a judgment appointing the Lokayukta under the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986, on the basis that a later Supreme Court decision concerning the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 showed inconsistency in the appointment process. The Court compared the two statutes and found their consultation frameworks materially different: the Gujarat Act requires appointment by the Governor after consultation with the Chief Justice and, where applicable, the Leader of the Opposition, while the Karnataka Act involves advice of the Chief Minister with a broader set of consultees. Because the later decision itself acknowledged this distinction, it did not reveal any patent mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. No ground for review was made out. en-us Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jun 2025 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171998 Review was sought against a judgment appointing the Lokayukta under the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986, on the basis that a later Supreme Court decision concerning the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 showed inconsistency in the appointment process. The Court compared the two statutes and found their consultation frameworks materially different: the Gujarat Act requires appointment by the Governor after consultation with the Chief Justice and, where applicable, the Leader of the Opposition, while the Karnataka Act involves advice of the Chief Minister with a broader set of consultees. Because the later decision itself acknowledged this distinction, it did not reveal any patent mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. No ground for review was made out. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171998