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 A 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] B 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.): “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 D 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.