In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXI Rule 3(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019 [Against the impugned final order dated 17.02.2020 passed in W.P. No. 51684 of 2019 (GM-RES) PIL by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]

IN THE MATTER OF :

SAMAJ PARIVARTHANA SAMUDAYA ...PETITIONER VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

PAPER – BOOK [For Index Kindly See Inside]

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER: PAI AMIT

Filed on 10.06.2020

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Sr. No. Date of Record of Proceedings Pages

INDEX

Sl. Particulars of Document Page No. part of which it Remarks No. belongs Part I Part II (Contents (Contents of paper of file Book) along) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) ( v) 1. Court Fee 2. O/R on Limitation A A 3. Listing Proforma A1-A2 A1-A2 4. Cover Page of Paper Book A-3 5. Index of Record of Proceedings A-4 6. Limitation Report prepared by the A-5 Registry 7. Defect List A-6 8. Note Sheet NS1 to … 9. List of Dates B – Q 10. Impugned Order A copy of the impugned final order dated 17.02.2020 passed in W.P. 1-25 No. 51684 of 2019 (GM-RES) PIL by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

11. Petition seeking Special leave to appeal along with affidavit. 26-42

12. Appendix Section 3 of the Karnataka 43 Lokayukta Act, 1984

13. Annexure P/1 A true copy of the letter No. Si Aa 44 Su E 168 SLU 2017 dated 24.07.2018 by the Chief Minister to the Chief Justice.

14. Annexure P/2 A true copy of the letter dated 45 14.09.2018 by the Chief Justice to the Chief Minister.

15. Annexure P/3 A true copy of the letter No. 46-47 PSCM/742/2019 dated 20.06.2019 by the Chief Minister to the Chief Justice.

16. Annexure P/4 A true copy of the letter dated 48 22.06.2019 by the Chief Justice to the Chief Minister.

17. Annexure P/5 A true copy of the letter No. PSCM/1447/2019 dated 12.11.2019 49-50 of the Chief Minister to the Chief Justice.

18. Annexure P/6 A true copy of the letter dated 51-52 14.11.2019 by the Chief Justice to the Chief Minister.

19. Annexure P/7 A true copy of the Notification No. 53-54 DPAR 168 SLU 2017 dated 20.11.2019.

20. Annexure P/8 A true copy of the communication 55-57 SPIO No. 665/2019 dated 30.11.2019

21. Annexure P/9 A true copy of the Writ Petition No. 58-76 51684 of 2019 [GM-RES] PIL dated 02.12.2019 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.

22. Annexure P/10 A true copy of the Statement of 77-94 Objections dated 31.01.2020 filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2.

23. F/M 24. V/A 95

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF :

SAMAJ PARIVARTHANA SAMUDAYA ...PETITIONER VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/ are within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is a delay of _____ days in

filing the same against order dated 17.02.2020 an application for

condonation of ____ days delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of __ days in refilling the petition and an application for

condonation of __days delay in refilling has been filed.

NEW DELHI SECTION OFFICER DATED: 10.06.2020

A-1

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING SECTION: II-A The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box): Central Act: (Title) : The Constitution of India Section: Article 226 Central Rule: (Title): N.A. Rule No (s): 27 State Act (Title): The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 Section: Section 3 State Rule: (Title): N.A. Rule No (s): N.A. Impugned Interim Order: N.A. Impugned final Order/Decree: 17.02.2020 High Court: The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru Names of Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath & Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.I. Arun 1. Nature of matter: CIVIL 2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No. 1: SAMAJ PARIVARTHANA SAMUDAYA (b) e-mail ID: N.A. (c) Mobile phone number: N. A. 3. (a) Respondent No.1: GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS. (b) e-mail ID: Not Known (c) Mobile phone number: Not Known 4. (a) Main category classification: (b) Sub classification: 5. Not to be listed before: N. A. 6. (A) Similar/Pending matter: No similar pending case. (B) Similar decided cases with citation: No similar cases have been decided. 7. Criminal Matters: NO a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: N/A b) FIR No. – N/A c) Police Station: N/A d) Sentence Awarded: N/A e) Period of Sentence Undergone including Period of Detention/Custody Undergone: N/A 8. Land Acquisition Matters: N.A. a) Date of Section 4 notification: N. A. b) Date of Section 6 notification: N. A. c) Date of Section 17 notification: N. A. 9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N. A. 10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only): N.A. Senior citizen>65 years: N.A. SC/ST: N.A. WOMAN: N.A. Disabled Legal Aid case: N.A. In custody: N.A. 11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): N. A.

PAI AMIT AOR for petitioner(s)/appellants(s) Date: 10.06.2020 AOR CODE: 2649 [email protected]

SYNOPSIS The present petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal under Article

136 of the Constitution is being filed against the final order dated

17.02.2020 passed in W.P. No. 51684 of 2019 (GM-RES) PIL by the

Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, by which the writ petition in public interest in the nature of quo warranto and seeking the quashing of Government Order dated 20.11.2019 appointed

Respondent No. 4 as Upa-Lokayukata, was rejected by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court.

The Petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies

Registration Act, 1960, and has been engaged in various activities in the realm of public life, and works in close co-operation with several other voluntary organisations, networks and movements to promote actions with people’s participation on a broader scale towards social transformation and to bring about larger collective impacts on the governmental policies, deliberated legislations and programmes for human-well being. The

Petitioner is also been involved in several activities for the betterment of society in the protection of the natural resources, and also engaged in fighting corruption in public life. The Petitioner has also filed several writ petitions in public interest in this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble High

Court, in furtherance of the activities mentioned above. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the Government of the State of Karnataka, and the Respondent C

No. 3 is the Secretariat of the Hon’ble Governor of the State. Respondent

No. 4 is a former Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of the Karnataka, whose appointment as Upa-Lokayukta by Respondents No. 1 to 3 has been challenged in the present proceedings.

The principal question before this Hon’ble Court in the present proceedings is what would constitute “meaningful and effective consultation” under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and whether the non-supply of relevant material to the Chief Justice, i.e. one of the consultees, would be contrary to the principles laid down by this

Hon’ble Court.

It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court, in the case of Justice

Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna, (2013) 3 SCC 117, while categorically holding that the view of the Chief Justice did not have any primacy of opinion, however, held (main opinion by K.S.P.

Radhakrishnan, J.):

name from the source earmarked in the statute that must also be made available to the consultees so that they can also express their views on the name or names suggested by the Chief Minister. After due deliberations and making meaningful consultation, the Chief Minister of the State is free to advise a name which has come up for consideration among the consultees to the Governor of the State. The advice tendered by the Chief Minister will have primacy and not that of the consultees including the Chief Justice of the High Court. 78. …The Chief Minister, it may be noted, cannot advise a name from that source without making a meaningful and effective consultation after disclosing the relevant materials. This, in my view, is a sufficient safeguard against arbitrary selection and advice. Further, as already noticed, the duties and functions of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta are investigative in nature and their orders as such cannot be executed. In such situation, the legislature, in its wisdom, felt that no primacy need be attached to the views of the consultees including the Chief Justice but on the advice of the Chief Minister.” In a concurring judgment, it was held (concurring opinion of Madan B.

Lokur, J.):

138. I do not think it necessary to circumscribe the manner of consultation. The Chief Minister may consult the other constitutional authorities collectively or in groups or even individually – this hardly matters as long as there is meaningful and effective consultation. Similarly, I do not think it is necessary to restrict the mode of consultation the mode of consultation. It may be in a meeting or through correspondence. Today, with available E

technology, consultation may even be through a video link. The form of consultation or the venue of consultation is not important – what is important is the substance of the consultation. The matter has to be looked at programmatically and not semantically. It is important, as held by the High Court, that no constitutional authority is kept in the dark about the name of any candidate under consideration and each constitutional authority mentioned in Section 3(2)(b) of the Act must know the recommendation made by one another for appointment as an Upa-Lokayukta. In addition, they must have before them (as Fazal Ali, J. concluded in S.P. Gupta) full and identical facts. As long as these basic requirements are met, “consultation” could be said to have taken place.” FACTUAL MATRIX IN THE PRESENT CASE

The post of Upa-Lokayukta of the State of Karnataka fell vacant on

01.03.2018 with the retirement of Justice (Retd.) Subhash B. Adi.

Thereafter, on 24.07.2018, the then Chief Minister of the State elicited the views of the then Chief Justice of the High Court, and sought the suggestion of an eligible name. In response, the Chief Justice of the High

Court of Karnataka, vide letter dated 14.09.2018, recommended the name of Justice (Retd.) A.N. Venugopala Gowda. However, there was no action on the same. Subsequently, more than 9 months after the recommendation made by the then Chief Justice, the then Chief Minister, vide letter dated

20.06.2019, against sought the recommendation of the newly appointed

Chief Justice. Accordingly, on 22.06.2019, the Chief Justice reiterated the recommendation made by his predecessor after perusal of the relevant F

materials. However, vide letter dated 12.11.2019, the Chief Minister informed the Chief Justice that upon consulting the other four authorities, it was recommended that Respondent No. 4 be appointed, and that the same was placed for consideration. In response, vide letter dated 14.11.2019, the

Chief Justice informed the Chief Minister as follows:

“There is no material placed before me by the State Government warranting change of the recommendation earlier made by me and my learned predecessor. Hence, I maintain the recommendations. Therefore, I am unable to concur with the recommendation made known to me by your aforesaid letter.” Subsequently, by the notification impugned before the Hon’ble High Court as also in the present proceeding, Respondents No. 1 to 3 were pleased to appoint Respondent No. 4 as Upa-Lokayukta.

This action of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 appointing Respondent

No. 4 was challenged by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court, in a writ petition in public interest, seeking the following reliefs:

“The petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ or order: (i) declaring the respondent 4 has no authority to hold & continue to hold the public office of the Karnataka Upa- Lokayukta, under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984; (ii) quashing the order bearing no. DPAR 168 SLU 2017 dated 20:11:2019 passed by the Governor of Karnataka, appointing 4th respondent as Karnataka Upa-Lokayukta, copy produced and marked as Annexure – G – AND G

(iii) For such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” By the impugned Order, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to reject the writ petition on the ground that sufficient consultation had taken place, and that all the facts were placed before the Chief Justice before the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was made, and that amounted to sufficient consultation. Being aggrieved by this Order of the Hon’ble High

Court, the present special leave petition is being preferred.

NO EFFECTIVE CONSULTATION

That, as is borne out of the record, on 24.07.2018, the Chief

Minister elicited the suggestion of a suitable name from the Chief Justice of the High Court. Accordingly, the Chief Justice recommended the name of Justice (Retd.) A.N. Venugopala Gowda. More than 9 months after the recommendation made by the then Chief Justice, the then Chief Minister, vide letter dated 20.06.2019, against sought the recommendation of the newly appointed Chief Justice. Accordingly, on 22.06.2019, the Chief

Justice reiterated the recommendation made by his predecessor after perusal of the relevant materials. However, vide letter dated 12.11.2019, the Chief Minister informed the Chief Justice that upon consulting the other four authorities, it was recommended that Respondent No. 4 be appointed, and that the same was placed for consideration. In response, H

vide letter dated 14.11.2019, the Chief Justice informed the Chief Minister as follows:

Further, as is borne by the record, there was no effective consultation by the Chief Minister, as mentioned in Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka

Lokayukta Act, 1984, namely, Chief Justice, the Chairperson of the

Karnataka Legislative Council, the Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka

Legislative Council and the Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka

Legislative Assembly. As is borne out of the record, the Chief Minister has only communicated the choice made or the name recommended. However, there has been no discussion or consideration of any form between the consultees in regard to the appointment of Respondent No. 4. It is further submitted that as is evident from the letter dated 14.11.2019 by the Chief

Justice to the Chief Minister, no material was also placed before the Chief

Justice warranting any change of recommendations. It is submitted that in I

the absence of any material, the consultation cannot be said to be

“meaningful and effective” as mandated by Section 3(2)(b) of the

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Further, it is submitted, this Hon’ble

Court has clearly mandated that names for the purpose of appointment ought to be discussed/deliberated upon, although the manner of discussion/deliberation is not spelt out. It is submitted that mere information of the name to the consultees cannot be considered to be within the realm of discussion or deliberation, and therefore running afoul of the sacrosanct principle of “meaningful and effective consultation” as mandated by Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

NO MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE

It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the judgment impugned herein has erred in noting that whether there was any material or not to change the earlier recommendation, had no nexus with the recommendation made by the remaining consultees. It is submitted that any recommendation made or any name. It is respectfully submitted that this reasoning is erroneous. Without any material placed before even one of the consultees, consultation as mandated by the Karnataka Lokayukta

Act, 1984 would be meaningless. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court in

Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) has held the “full and identical facts” must be placed before each consultee, i.e. to say that all the material must J

be placed before all the consultees. It is submitted, admittedly, no material in regard to the appointment was placed before Respondent No. 4 was placed before the Chief Justice, and therefore, it cannot be said that the consultation was effective and meaningful. Further, it is submitted, this

Hon’ble Court has clearly mandated that names for the purpose of appointment ought to be discussed/deliberated upon, although the manner of discussion/deliberation is not spelt out. It is submitted that mere information of the name to the consultees without placing requisite material on record cannot be considered to be within the realm of discussion or deliberation, and therefore running afoul of the sacrosanct principle of “meaningful and effective consultation” as mandated by

Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court erred in noting that merely because the Chief Justice did not mention the consultation to be ineffective, the same was to the satisfaction of the Chief Justice. It is submitted that in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the Hon’ble High Court was not called upon to examine whether the Chief Justice was satisfied with the consultation, but whether the absence of material being placed before the

Chief Justice, and the non-existence of proper discussion/deliberations between the Chief Minister and the consultees constituted “meaningful and effective consultation” as mandated by Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka K

Lokayukta Act, 1984, and as laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.).

Hence the present petition seeking special leave to appeal under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

LIST OF DATES 15.01.1986 The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 came into force

following the recommendations of the Administrative

Reforms Commission to improve the standards of public

administration and to enquire into complaints of corruption,

favouritism, and official indiscipline administrative

machinery. The Preamble to the Act in furtherance of the

aforementioned object in extracted hereinbelow:

“An Act to make provisions for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for making enquiries into administrative action relatable to matters specified in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, taken by or on behalf of the Government of Karnataka or certain public authorities in the State of Karnataka (including any omission or commission in connection with or arising out of such action) in certain cases and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto. Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for making such enquiries into administrative action L

relatable to matters specified in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, taken by or on behalf of the Government of Karnataka or certain public authorities in the State of Karnataka (including any omission or commission in connection with or arising out of such action) in certain cases and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto:” Section 3 of the said Act deals with the appointment of the

Lokayukta and the Upalokayuktas in the State. The Act has

been amended from time to time, i.e. in 1986, 1988, 1991,

2000 and 2010. Appointments have been made from time to

time as Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta by the Respondents

No. 1 to 3.

01.03.2019 One of the Upalokayuktas, Justice (Retd.) Shri. Subhash B.

Adi retired.

24.07.2018 The then Chief Minister of the State, vide letter dated

24.07.2018, addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

Karnataka, sought a suggestion of an eligible name for the

appointment of Karnataka Upalokayukta. A true copy of the

letter No. Si Aa Su E 168 SLU 2017 dated 24.07.2018 by the

Chief Minister to the Chief Justice is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P/1 [Page 44]. M

14.09.2018 In response to the said letter, Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

Karnataka, vide letter dated 14.09.2018 addressed to then

Chief Minister, recommended the name of Justice (Retd.)

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, former Judge of the Karnataka

High Court, along with the Curriculum Vitae. A true copy of

the letter dated 14.09.2018 by the Chief Justice to the Chief

Minister is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/2

[Page 45].

10.05.2019 Thereafter, upon the elevation of the then Chief Justice of

the Karnataka to this Hon’ble Court, a new Hon’ble the

Chief Justice was appointed to the Karnataka High Court.

20.06.2019 The then Chief Minister vide letter dated 20.06.2019

addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice sought a suggestion

of an eligible name for the appointment of Karnataka

Upalokayukta. It is relevant to note that the Chief Minister

also informed Hon’ble the Chief Justice that the

recommendation made by his predecessor, i.e. that of Justice

(Retd.) A.N. Venugopala Gowda. A true copy of the letter

No. PSCM/742/2019 dated 20.06.2019 by the Chief

Minister to the Chief Justice is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P/3 [Pages 46 to 47]. N

22.06.2019 Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Karnataka, in response to the

letter of the Chief Minister, vide letter dated 22.06.2019,

reiterated the recommendations of his predecessor, after

perusing the records and considering the relevant material. A

true copy of the letter dated 22.06.2019 by the Chief Justice

to the Chief Minister is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure P/4 [Page 48].

12.11.2019 Vide letter dated 12.11.2019, the Chief Minister of the State

of Karnataka, informed Hon’ble the Chief Justice that the

other four consultees, namely the Chairman of the Karnataka

Legislative Council, the Speaker of the Karnataka

Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition of the Karnataka

Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the

Karnataka Legislative Assembly had recommended

Respondent No. 4 to be appointed to the post of

Upalokayukta, and stated that the same was placed before

the Chief Justice for consideration. A true copy of the letter

No. PSCM/1447/2019 dated 12.11.2019 of the Chief

Minister to the Chief Justice is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P/5 [Pages 49 to 50].

14.11.2019 In reply to the aforementioned letter, Hon’ble the Chief O

Justice of Karnataka, vide letter dated 14.11.2019, informed

the Chief Minister that there was no material placed by the

State Government before him warranting the change of

recommendation, and hence was unable to concur with the

recommendation made. A true copy of the letter dated

14.11.2019 by the Chief Justice to the Chief Minister is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/6 [Pages 51

to 52].

20.11.2019 By virtue of notification No. DPAR 168 SLU 2017 dated

20.11.2019, Respondent No. 4 was appointed Respondent

No. 4 – Shri. Bhimanagouda Sanganagouda Patil, former

Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka as the

Upalokayukta of the Karnataka State. A true copy of the

Notification No. DPAR 168 SLU 2017 dated 20.11.2019

issued by the Respondent No. 1 is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P/7 [Pages 53 to 54].

21.11.2019 The Petitioner, through its office bearer, Dr. K. Shivram,

sought certain information form the Public Information

Office, High Court of Karnataka under the Right to

Information Act, 2005.

30.11.2019 In response to the aforesaid, on 30.11.2019, the Public P

Information Office, High Court of Karnataka furnished the

information aforementioned Dr. K. Shivram by

communication being SPIO No. 665/2019 dated 30.11.2019.

A true copy of the communication SPIO No. 665/2019 dated

30.11.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure

P/8 [Pages 55 to 57].

02.12.2019 The Petitioner filed a writ petition in public interest seeking

a declaration that Respondent No. 4 had no authority hold

the public office of Upa-Lokayukta of Karnataka and

seeking the quashing of notification dated 20.11.2019 issued

by the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka, and the same came

to be numbered as Writ Petition No. 51684 of 2019 [GM-

RES] PIL dated 02.12.2019, primarily on the ground that

there was no effective consultation on the appointment of

Respondent No. 4 with the Chief Justice, as mandated by

this Hon’ble Court in the case of Justice Chandrashekaraiah

(Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna, (2013) 3 SCC 117.

A true copy of the Writ Petition No. 51684 of 2019 [GM-

RES] PIL dated 02.12.2019 filed before the Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P/9 [Pages 58 to 76]. Q

31.01.2020 The Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed their Statement of

Objections refuting the averments made in the writ petition.

A true copy of the Statement of Objections dated 31.01.2020

filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 are annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P/10 [Pages 77 to 94].

17.02.2020 The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, vide the

final Order impugned herein, was pleased to dismiss the writ

petition filed by the Petitioner, holding that the averment

that there was no effective consultation of the Chief Justice

of Karnataka was unfounded.

10.06.2020 Hence the present petition seeking special leave to appeal

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2020 Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXI Rule 3 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 [Against the final Order dated 17.02.2020 in W.P. No. 51684 of 2019 (GM-RES) PIL passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]

IN THE MATTER OF:-

BETWEEN POSITION OF PARTIES

IN THE IN THIS HON’BLE HON’BLE HIGH COURT COURT

1. SAMAJ PARIVARTHANA Petitioner Petitioner SAMUDAYA (A Society Registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960), Represented by its Founder President, Shri. S.R. Hiremath, Office at “Ashadeep”, Jayanagar Cross, Saptapur, Dharwad – 580001, Karnataka

AND

1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Respondent Contesting Through Chief Secretary, Respondent 27

Government of Karnataka, No. 1 No. 1 Vidhan Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore 560001, Karnataka.

2. DEPUTY SECTRETARY TO Respondent Contesting GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, No. 2 Respondent Department of Personal and No. 2 Administrative Reforms (Vigilance), Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560001, Karnataka.

3. SECRETERIAT TO THE Respondent Contesting GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA No. 3 Respondent Through the Secretary to the Governor, No. 3 Raj Bhavan, Raj Bhavan Road, Bangalore 560001, Karnataka.

4. SHRI. BHIMANAGOUDA Respondent Contesting SANGANAGOUDA PATIL, No. 4 Respondent Judge (Retd.), High Court of Karnataka, No. 4 Upa-Lokayukta, Multi Storeyed Building, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore 560001, Karnataka.

TO, HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS HON’BLE COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. The present petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal under

Article 136 of the Constitution is being filed against the final

order dated 17.02.2020 passed in W.P. No. 51684 of 2019

(GM-RES) PIL by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, by which the writ petition in

public interest in the nature of quo warranto and seeking the

quashing of Government Order dated 20.11.2019 appointed

Respondent No. 4 as Upa-Lokayukata, was rejected by the

Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court.

1A. The correct addresses of the parties has been given in the

Memo of Parties herein above.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:

The present petition seeking special leave to appeal raises the

following substantial questions of law:

I. What would the scope of “meaningful and effective

consultation” under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka 29

Lokayukta Act, 1984 constitute for the purpose of

appointment of the Upa-Lokayukta.

II. Whether the non-supply of relevant material to the Chief

Justice, i.e. one of the consultees, would be contrary to

the principles laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the case

of Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C.

Krishna, (2013) 3 SCC 117.

III. Whether “meaningful and effective consultation” would

require the consultees under the Section 3(2)(b) of the

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to have a free exchange

of views.

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3 (2)

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to

appeal has been filed against the final order dated 17.02.2020

W.P. No. 51684 of 2019 (GM-RES) PIL by the Division Bench

of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5

That Annexures P/1 to P/10 filed along with the present special

leave petition are true and correct copies of the 30

pleadings/documents which formed a part of the record of the

case in the Hon’ble National Commission against whose order

leave to appeal is sought for in the present Petition.

5. GROUNDS:

Being aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated

17.02.2020 W.P. No. 51684 of 2019 (GM-RES) PIL by the

Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at

Bengaluru, the Petitioner craves special leave of this Hon’ble

Court to appeal, on, inter alia, the following grounds:

A. That the Respondents No. 1 to 3 did not hold

“meaningful and effective consultation” under Section

3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, as laid

down by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Justice

Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna,

(2013) 3 SCC 117. In the said case, this Hon’ble Court,

while holding that there was no primacy to the opinion

of the Chief Justice in the matter of appointment of the

Upa-Lokayukta, the consultation had to be “meaningful

and effective”. 31

B. That this Hon’ble Court, in the case of Justice

Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna,

(2013) 3 SCC 117, while categorically holding that the

view of the Chief Justice did not have any primacy of

opinion, however, held (main opinion by K.S.P.

Radhakrishnan, J.):

“77. The Chief Minister is legally obliged to consul the Chief Justice of the High Court and other four consultees, which is a mandatory requirement. The consultation must be meaningful and effective and mere eliciting the views or calling for recommendations would not suffice. The consultees can suggest various names from the source stipulated in the statute and those names have to be discussed either in a meeting to be convened by the Chief Minister of the State for that purpose or by way of circulation. The Chief Minister, if proposes to suggest or advise any name from the source earmarked in the statute that must also be made available to the consultees so that they can also express their views on the name or names suggested by the Chief Minister. After due deliberations and making meaningful consultation, the Chief Minister of the State is free 32

to advise a name which has come up for consideration among the consultees to the Governor of the State. The advice tendered by the Chief Minister will have primacy and not that of the consultees including the Chief Justice of the High Court. 78. …The Chief Minister, it may be noted, cannot advise a name from that source without making a meaningful and effective consultation after disclosing the relevant materials. This, in my view, is a sufficient safeguard against arbitrary selection and advice. Further, as already noticed, the duties and functions of the Lokayukta or Upa- Lokayukta are investigative in nature and their orders as such cannot be executed. In such situation, the legislature, in its wisdom, felt that no primacy need be attached to the views of the consultees including the Chief Justice but on the advice of the Chief Minister.” In a concurring judgment, it was held (concurring opinion of Madan B. Lokur, J.):

and effective consultation. Similarly, I do not think it is necessary to restrict the mode of consultation the mode of consultation. It may be in a meeting or through correspondence. Today, with available technology, consultation may even be through a video link. The form of consultation or the venue of consultation is not important – what is important is the substance of the consultation. The matter has to be looked at programmatically and not semantically. It is important, as held by the High Court, that no constitutional authority is kept in the dark about the name of any candidate under consideration and each constitutional authority mentioned in Section 3(2)(b) of the Act must know the recommendation made by one another for appointment as an Upa-Lokayukta. In addition, they must have before them (as Fazal Ali, J. concluded in S.P. Gupta) full and identical facts. As long as these basic requirements are met, “consultation” could be said to have taken place.”

C. That, as is borne out of the record, on 24.07.2018, the

Chief Minister elicited the suggestion of a suitable name

from the Chief Justice of the High Court. Accordingly,

the Chief Justice recommended the name of Justice 34

(Retd.) A.N. Venugopala Gowda. More than 9 months after the recommendation made by the then Chief

Justice, the then Chief Minister, vide letter dated

20.06.2019, against sought the recommendation of the newly appointed Chief Justice. Accordingly, on

22.06.2019, the Chief Justice reiterated the recommendation made by his predecessor after perusal of the relevant materials. However, vide letter dated

12.11.2019, the Chief Minister informed the Chief

Justice that upon consulting the other four authorities, it was recommended that Respondent No. 4 be appointed, and that the same was placed for consideration. In response, vide letter dated 14.11.2019, the Chief Justice informed the Chief Minister as follows:

Subsequently, by the notification impugned before the

Hon’ble High Court as also in the present proceeding,

Respondents No. 1 to 3 were pleased to appoint

Respondent No. 4 as Upa-Lokayukta.

D. That, as is borne by the record, there was no effective

consultation by the Chief Minister, as mentioned in

Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984,

namely, Chief Justice, the Chairperson of the Karnataka

Legislative Council, the Leader of Opposition in the

Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of

Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. As is

borne out of the record, the Chief Minister has only

communicated the choice made or the name

recommended. However, there has been no discussion or

consideration of any form between the consultees in

regard to the appointment of Respondent No. 4. It is

further submitted that as is evident from the letter dated

14.11.2019 by the Chief Justice to the Chief Minister, no

material was also placed before the Chief Justice 36

warranting any change of recommendations. It is

submitted that in the absence of any material, the

consultation cannot be said to be “meaningful and

effective” as mandated by Section 3(2)(b) of the

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Further, it is submitted,

this Hon’ble Court has clearly mandated that names for

the purpose of appointment ought to be

discussed/deliberated upon, although the manner of

discussion/deliberation is not spelt out. It is submitted

that mere information of the name to the consultees

cannot be considered to be within the realm of

discussion or deliberation, and therefore running afoul of

the sacrosanct principle of “meaningful and effective

consultation” as mandated by Section 3(2)(b) of the

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

E. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble High Court

in the judgment impugned herein has erred in noting that

whether there was any material or not to change the

earlier recommendation, had no nexus with the 37 recommendation made by the remaining consultees. It is submitted that any recommendation made or any name.

It is respectfully submitted that this reasoning is erroneous. Without any material placed before even one of the consultees, consultation as mandated by the

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 would be meaningless.

It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court in Justice

Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) has held the “full and identical facts” must be placed before each consultee, i.e. to say that all the material must be placed before all the consultees. It is submitted, admittedly, no material in regard to the appointment was placed before Respondent

No. 4 was placed before the Chief Justice, and therefore, it cannot be said that the consultation was effective and meaningful. Further, it is submitted, this Hon’ble Court has clearly mandated that names for the purpose of appointment ought to be discussed/deliberated upon, although the manner of discussion/deliberation is not spelt out. It is submitted that mere information of the name to the consultees without placing requisite material 38

on record cannot be considered to be within the realm of

discussion or deliberation, and therefore running afoul of

the sacrosanct principle of “meaningful and effective

consultation” as mandated by Section 3(2)(b) of the

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

F. Further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court erred

in noting that merely because the Chief Justice did not

mention the consultation to be ineffective, the same was

to the satisfaction of the Chief Justice. It is submitted

that in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the

Hon’ble High Court was not called upon to examine

whether the Chief Justice was satisfied with the

consultation, but whether the absence of material being

placed before the Chief Justice, and the non-existence of

proper discussion/deliberations between the Chief

Minister and the consultees constituted “meaningful and

effective consultation” as mandated by Section 3(2)(b)

of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and as laid down 39

by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Justice

Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.).

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

No interim relief is being sought for.

7. MAIN PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to:

a) Grant special leave to appeal against the impugned final

order dated 17.02.2020 passed in W.P. No. 51684 of 2019

(GM-RES) PIL by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; and/or

b) Pass such other order or orders which this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

8. PRAYERS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

No interim relief sought for.

Drawn by: 1. S. Basavaraj, Adv. Filed by: 2. Pai Amit, Adv.

Filed on: 10.06.2020 New Delhi PAI AMIT ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF :

SAMAJ PARIVARTHANA SAMUDAYA ...PETITIONER VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ...RESPONDENTS ORS.

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before the Court whose order is challenged and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the grounds urged in the special leave petition for consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the Petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave Petition. FILED BY:

Filed on: 10.06.2020 New Delhi PAI AMIT Advocate for the Petitioner

APPENDIX

The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984

3. Appointment of Lokayukta and Upalokayukta.- (1) For the purpose of conducting investigations and enquiries in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Governor shall appoint a person to be known as the Lokayukta and one or more persons to be known as the Upalokayukta or Upalokayuktas.

(2) (a) A person to be appointed as the Lokayukta shall be a person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or that of the Chief Justice of a High Court and shall be appointed on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

(b) A person to be appointed as an Upalokayukta shall be a person who has held the office of a judge of a High Court and shall be appointed on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

(3) A person appointed as the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe, before the Governor, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation in the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.

//True Copy//

ANNEXURE P/1

H.D. KUMARASWAMY VIDHANA SOUDHA CHIEF MINISTER BENGALURU – 560001

DATE : 24.07.2018

No. Si Aa Su E 168 SLU 2017

Dear Justice Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, The post of Karnataka Upalokayukta has fallen vacant due to the retirement of Hon’ble Justice Shri Subhash B Adi on 01.02.2018. As per section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, a person to be appointed as the Upa lakayukta shall be a person who has held the office of the judge of the High Court for not less than five years and shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka and other Constitutional Authorities viz., the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Leader of the Opposition in Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in Karnatka Legislative Assembly. I would request you to suggest the name of an eligible person along with details for being considered for appointment to the post of Karnataka Upalokayukta. I shall be grateful it you could give your views as early as possible. With regards. Yours sincerely. Sd/- (H.D. KUMARASWAMY) Hon’ble Justice Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

//True Copy//

ANNEXURE P/2

Dinesh Maheshwari High Court of Karnataka Chief Justice Bengaluru

September 14, 2018

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Chief Minister,

With reference to your letter dated 24.07.2018 for suggesting the name of an eligible person, along with details, for being considered for appointment to the post of Karnataka Upalokayukta, after due consideration of the entire matter with relevant inputs, in my views Hon’ble Sri Justice A. N. Venugopala Gowda, a former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, who retired on 15.06.2017, is the most suitable person to be appointed as Karnataka Upalokayukta.

The Curriculum Vitae of Hon’ble Sri Justice A.N. Venugopala Gowda in enclosed herewith.

With Regards, Sincerely, Sd/- (Dinesh Maheshwari) Chief Justice Shri H.D. Kumaraswamy Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha BENGALURU

“Shanti Gruha” 1, Palace Road, Bengaluru – 560001 080-22954601 (O), 080-22954604 (R)

//True Copy//

ANNEXURE P/3

H.D. KUMARASWAMY VIDHANA SOUDHA CHIEF MINISTER BENGALURU – 560001

Date : 20.06.2019

No. PSCM/742/2019

Dear Justice Shri Abhay Sreeniwas Oka,

The post of Karnataka Upa Lokayukta has fallen vacant due to the retirement of Hon’ble Justice Shri Subhash B. Adi on 01.03.2018.

As per section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, a person to be appointed as the Upa lokayukta shall be a person who has held the office of the judge of the High Court for not less than five years and shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka and other Constitutional Authorities viz., the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Leader of the Opposition in Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in Karnatka Legislative Assembly.

I would request you to suggest the name of an eligible person along with details for being considered for appointment to the post of Karnataka Upa lokayukta.

Incidentally, I would like to bring to your notice that Hon’ble Chief Justuce Shri Dinesh Maheshwari had suggested the name of Shri A.N. Gopala Gowda in his letter dated 14the September, 2018.

I shall be grateful it you could give your views/ recommendation as early as possible.

With regards.

Yours sincerely. Sd/- (H.D. KUMARASWAMY) Hon’ble Justice Shri Abhay Sreeniwas Oka, Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.

//True Copy//

ANNEXURE P/4

Abhay S. Oka High Court of Karnataka Chief Justice Bengaluru - 560001 High Court of Karnataka Off: 080-22954601 22954602 June 22, 2019

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Sri H D Kumaraswamy,

I acknowledge your letter dated June 20, 2019 about the recommendation to the vacant post of Karnataka Upalokayukta.

After perusing the records it is noticed that my predecessor, the then

Hon’ble Chief justice Sri Dinesh Maheshwari, had recommended the name of

Hon’ble Sri Justice A. N. Venugopala Gowda, a former judge of the High Court of Karnataka for appointment as Karnataka Upalokayukta.

After having considered the relevant materials, I reiterate the recommendation made by my predecessor the then Hon’ble Chief justice Sri

Dinesh Maheshwari.

With warm Regards,

Sincerely, Sd/- (ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA) Chief Justice Shri H.D. Kumaraswamy Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha BENGALURU

//True Copy//

ANNEXURE P/5

H.D. KUMARASWAMY VIDHANA SOUDHA CHIEF MINISTER BENGALURU – 560001

12/11/2019

PSCM/1447/2019

Dear Sri. Justice Abhay S. Oka,

Sub : Appointment of Upa-Lokayuktha. Ref : Letter of Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka Dated: 22.06.2019.

The post of Upa- Lokayuktha has fallen vacant due to retirement of

Hon’ble Sri. Justice Subhash B. Adi on 01.03.2018.

Constitutional Authorities viz., the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Leader of the Opposition in

Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in Karnatka

Legislative Assembly.

By letter at reference above, you have recommended the name of

Hon’ble Sri. Justice A. N. Venugopala Gowda to be appointed as Karnataka

Upa- Lokayukta.

As the process of consultation of all the other four authorities i.e., the

Chairman of Karnataka Legislative Councel, the Speaker of Karnataka

Legislative Assembly, Leader of the 30.11.19.

Opposition in Karnataka Legislatvie Council and the Leader of the of

Opposition in Karnataka Legislative Assembly have recommended Hon’ble Sri.

Justice Bhimanagouda Sanganagouda Patil to be appointed as Upa- Lokayukta in the existing vacancy. The recommendation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice regarding Hon’ble Sri. Justice A N Venugopala Gowda has been brought to the notice of the above four authorities.

The above facts are placed before you for your kind consideration.

With regards.

Sd/- (B. S YEDIYURAPPA) Chief Minister Hon’ble Sri. Justice Abhay S. Oka Chief Justice High Court of Karnataka.

//True Copy//

ANNEXURE P/6

Abhay S. Oka High Court of Karnataka Chief Justice Bengaluru - 560001 High Court of Karnataka Off: 080-22954601 22954602

NOVEMBER 14, 2019

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Sri B. S Yediyurappa,

I acknowledge your letter dated November 12, 2019 about the recommendation to the vacant post of Karnataka Upalokayukta. I had addressed a letter on June 22, 2019 to Sri H D Kumaraswamy, the then Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, on the issue of recommendation to the vacant post of Karnataka Upalokeyukta. In the said letter, I had informed the Hon’ble Chief Minister as under: After perusing the records it is noticed that my predecessor, the then Hon’ble Chief justice Sri Dinesh Maheshwari, had recommended the name of Hon’ble Sri Justice A. N. Venugopala Gowda, a former judge of the High Court of Karnataka for appointment as Karnataka Upalokayukta. After having considered the relevant materials, I reiterate the recommendation made by my predecessor the then Hon’ble Chief justice Sri Dinesh Maheshwari. There is no material placed before me by the State Government warranting change of the recommendation earlier made by me and my learned predecessor. Hence, I maintain the recommendation.

Therefore, I am unable to concur with the recommendation made known to me by your aforesaid letter. With warm Regards, Sincerely, Sd/- (ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA) Chief Justice Shri B. S. Yadiyurappa Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha, BENGALURU

//True Copy//

ANNEXURE P/7

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NO. DPAR 168 SLU 2017 Government Secretary Vikasa Soudha Bangalore, dated : 20.11.2019

NOTIFICATION

WHEREAS Shri B S Yediyursppa, Chief Minister of Karnataka has recommended that justice Shri Bhimanagouda Sanganagouda Patil, Former

Judge, High Court of Karnataka, be appointed as an Upalokayukta of Karnataka.

WHEREAS this recommendation has been made after consulting the

Chief justice of the High Court of Karnataka the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative

Assembly, the Chairman, Karnatka Legislative Council and Leaders of

Opposition in both the Houses of Karnataka Legislature and also in accordance with the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in CIVIL APPEAL of 2012 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 15658- 15660 of 2012 and 16512-

16514 of ].

ORDER

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under section

3(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (Karantaka Act No. 4 of 1985), I,

VAJUBHAI VALA, Governor of Karanataka, hereby appoint Justice Shri

Bhimanaguda Sanganagouda Patil, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, as the Upalokayukta of Karnataka State.

(VAJUBHAI VALA) GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA. By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka. Sd/- (l. SHARADA) Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms [Vigilance] To, The Compiler, Karnataka Gazette, to publish in the Extra-ordinary Gazette and to supply 200 copies.

//True Copy//

ANNEXURE P/8

BY HAND SPIO. NO. 665/2019 E-Mail ID : [email protected] Ph : 080- 22954771 Office of the State Public information Officer & Joint Registrar, High Court of Karnataka. Bengaluru, dated : 30.11.2019 To Dr. K. Shivaram, #20, Sapthagiri, 1st B Cross, 33 Main, 7th Block, Banagirinagar, BSK 3rd Stage.

Sir,

Sub : Application dated 21.11.2019 received in this office on 22.11.2019 filed under the RTI Act “reg.

With reference to the above subject, in your above RTI Application you have requested to furnish the following information and as per the information received from the concerned authority of this office, it is informed to you as follows :

Kindly provide copies of the supporting documents if any as follows :

Sl. No Information sought for Information Provided

1 Copy of consent letter of No such consent letter has been

Hon’ble Chief Justice of sent by the Hon’ble Chief Justice,

Karnataka in appointing Sri high Court of Karnataka.

B.S. Patil, Judge (Rtd.) as

Uppalokayukta of Karnatkaka.

2 Copy of the communication There is no correspondence

letter of Hon’ble Chief Justice between the Hon’ble Chief

of Karnataka to the Justice, High Court of Karnataka

Government of Karnataka and and His Excellency the Governor

his Excellency the governor of of Karnataka in relation to the

Karnataka with regard to the appointment of Upalokayukta.

above. However, the concerned authority

3. Copy of reply from Govt of has furnished the copies of

Karnataka and the Governor to communications between the

the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Hon’ble Chief Minister,

Karnataka with regard to the Government of Karnataka and

above (in the interest of good Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High

governance). Court of Karnataka. The said

copies would run to 09 pages. For

furnishing the said

information/copies, at the rate of

Rs. 3/- (09 X 3 = 27) you have to

pay an amount of Rs. 27/- towards

copying charges and if you

require the said documents

through post. You may have to

remit the postal charges of Rs.

40/- and in total amounting to Rs.

67/- as per the High Court of

Krnataka, Right to information

(Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules,

2005.

This is for our information Yours faithfully. Sd/- (B.V. Renukamma) Note U/s 7(8) of the RTI Act, 2005. An Appeal is provided under Section 19 of the Right to information Act 2005 against the above information of the State Public information officer. If aggrieved. To the Appellate Authority- Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore to be file along with the impugned order of the SPIO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this communication. The following information pertaining to judicial matter is available in the Karnataka High Court Website. Viz., http://Karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/: 1. Daily cause list particulars. 2. Case Status 3. Certified copies Status 4. Notifications issued under the RTI act. 5. Notifications 6. Judgment.

//True Copy//