TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of the Constitution of India. 2) Brief facts: (a) Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), 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"). (b) Section 5(1) of the Act provides that the term for which Lokayukta shall hold office is six years from the date on which he enters upon his office. Further, Section 5(3) provides that on ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or Up- Lokayukta shall be ineligible for further appointment, whether as a Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta or in any other capacity under the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Respondent No. 2 completed his term of six years on 15.03.2012. (c) On 15.03.2012, the new government formed after the Uttar Pradesh State Assembly elections. 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. However, the same did not receive the assent of the Governor. (d) 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....introduced as a Money Bill in clear disregard to the provisions of Article 199 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. 7) 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. 8) By an order dated 24.09.2012, this Court stayed the further proceedings in CMWP No. 24905 of 2012. 9) Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 228 and 410 of 2012, Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein in W.P.(C) Nos. 228 and 410 of 2012. Contentions: 10) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, by way of the Amendment Act, the State of U.P. has, in substance and effect, reappointed Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein, as Lokayukta of the State of U.P. notwithstanding the fact tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....diqui before Respondent No. 2 and he has filed the present writ petition, as also his earlier writ petition, as a proxy of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui. 14) It was further submitted that the petitioner, for oblique motives, is questioning the valid legislative and executive actions. 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. 2 for making the reports specifically those against Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui. In the present writ petition as also in his earlier writ petition, the petitioner has made yet another collateral attack by questioning the title of Respondent No. 2 to the office of Lokayukta in order to stall the action/enquiry in respect of the grave charges of corruption that has been ordered pursuant to the reports of Respondent No. 2. 15) Besides, learned senior counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has made a collateral attack by seeking a writ of quo warranto to enquire by what authority Respondent No. 2 is holding the office of the Lokayukta, Uttar Pradesh and at the same time, he has challenged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or his wife would not be maintainable as they, as sitting members of the State Legislature, cannot assail and disown an action of the same State Legislature. 20) Dr. Dhawan submitted that Respondent No. 2 was appointed as the Lokayukta, U.P. on 16.03.2006 and he is continuing as such after 15.03.2012 under a valid law, viz., the Amendment Act, which has been duly enacted by the competent legislature. It was urged that the contentions of the petitioner regarding Money Bill is baseless and pointed out that the earlier two amendments to the Act in the year 1981 and 1988 were also by way of Money Bills, which is concealed by the petitioner. Further, it was submitted that the finality of the Speaker's decision and the legislative process cannot be challenged in a Court of law. 21) We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused all the relevant materials. Discussion: 22) Among all the contentions/issues raised, the main challenge relates to the validity of U.P. Lokayukta and Up- Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012. In order to consider the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer the relevant provisions. The State of U.P. has brought an Act called the U.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l direction as he may consider necessary to the Up- Lokayukta: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to authorize the Lokayukta to question any finding conclusion or recommendation of an Up- Lokayukta." 25) Section 5 speaks about terms of office and other conditions of service of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta which reads as under: "5. Terms of office and other conditions of service of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta.- (1) Every person appointed as the Lokayukta or Up- Lokayukta shall hold office for a term of six years from the date of which he enters upon his office: Provided that, (a) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign his office ; (b) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may be removed from office in the manner specified in section 6. xxx xxx xxx (3) On ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or an Up- Lokayukta shall be ineligible for further employment (Whether as the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta) or in any other capacity under the Government of Uttar Pradesh or for any employment under or office in any such local authority corporation. Gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pointed as the Lokayukta or Up- Lokayukta shall hold office for a term of eight years from the date on which he enters upon his office: Provided that the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office. Provided further that,- (a) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign his office: (b) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may be removed from office in the manner specified in Section 6." (b) for sub-section (3) the following sub-section shall be substituted and be deemed to have been substituted on March 15, 2012 namely:- "(3) On ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or an Up- Lokayukta shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of Uttar Pradesh" (c) After sub-section (5) the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:- "(6) The amendment made by the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 shall be applicable to the sitting Lokayukta or Up- Lokayuktas as the case may be, on the date of commencement of the said Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayukta. Since the decision to appoint another person would take time, it has been decided to amend the said Act to provide for increasing the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas from six years to eight years or till his successor enters upon his office, to limit the ineligibility of the Lokayukta 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-Lokayuktas as the case may be, on March 15, 2012. Since the State Legislature was not in session and immediate Legislative action was necessary, the Uttar Pradehs Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Ordinance, 2012 (U.P. Ordinance No. 1 of 2012) was promulgated by the Governor on March 22, 2012." 29) Though elaborate arguments have been made by Mr. K.K. Venugopal as well as Mr. Desai about the merits of the various recommendations/orders passed by Respondent No. 2 - Lokayukta in respect of former Ministers and persons connected with the government in these matters, we are primarily concerned about the validity of the Amendment Act and continuance of Respondent No. 2 as Lokayukta even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rises whether a Bill introduced in the Legislature of a State which has a Legislative Council is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of such State thereon shall be final. (4) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is transmitted to the Legislative Council under article 198, and when it is presented to the Governor for assent under article 200, the certificate of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly signed by him that it is a Money Bill." 32) It is also useful to refer Article 212 which reads as under: "212 - Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. (2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers." 33) The above provisions make it clear that the finality of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egularity of procedure; and (iii) Article 255 lays down that the requirements as to recommendation and previous sanction are to be regarded as a matter of procedure only. It is further held that the validity of the proceedings inside the Legislature of a State cannot be called in question on the allegation that the procedure laid down by the law has not been strictly followed and that no Court can go into those questions which are within the special jurisdiction of the Legislature itself, which has the power to conduct its own business. 37) Besides, the question whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not can be raised only in the State Legislative Assembly by a member thereof when the Bill is pending in the State Legislature and before it becomes an Act. It is brought to our notice that in the instant case no such question was ever raised by anyone. 38) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also raised another contention that the Bill was passed only by the Legislative Assembly and not by both the Houses. In other words, according to him, it was not passed by the Legislative Council and, therefore, the Amendment Act is bad. 39) Chapter III of Part VI....