https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293019 The SC set aside the HC's mandamus directing the Governor to appoint five advocates as District Judges under Art. 233(1). The Court held that the HC could not intervene when the Council of Ministers rejected the judicial panel, except by requiring the State Government to refer the matter back for reconsideration if consultation was inadequate. The Court ruled that a Council of Ministers' decision does not become a State Government order until expressed in the Governor's name per Art. 166(1) and communicated to concerned parties. The SC directed the State Government to communicate its views to the HC within six weeks for fresh consultation and quashed the government's decision to reject the judicial panel. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jul 2025 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293019 The SC set aside the HC's mandamus directing the Governor to appoint five advocates as District Judges under Art. 233(1). The Court held that the HC could not intervene when the Council of Ministers rejected the judicial panel, except by requiring the State Government to refer the matter back for reconsideration if consultation was inadequate. The Court ruled that a Council of Ministers' decision does not become a State Government order until expressed in the Governor's name per Art. 166(1) and communicated to concerned parties. The SC directed the State Government to communicate its views to the HC within six weeks for fresh consultation and quashed the government's decision to reject the judicial panel. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293019