Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala
Acts
  • Section24(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Rule 4(5)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala
Acts
  • Section24(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Rule 4(5)
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the writ applicant seeking a direction to the respondents to urgently appoint the Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor for Vadodara District within one month. The litigation originated from a prior judgment of this Court in the case of Laxman Rupchand Meghwani Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2016 (2) GLR 1671, where the Court quashed the appointment of Shri Raghuvir Pandya as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for Vadodara due to various reasons and issued guidelines for future appointments. The judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions, which were dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order. Despite this, the State Government had not appointed a regular Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor in accordance with the Court’s directions for almost two years. Consequently, the writ applicant sought appropriate relief from this Court to enforce the appointment.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the State Government is obligated to appoint a Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor for Vadodara District in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 30.10.2016?
  2. Whether this Court should issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction compelling the respondents to make such appointment within a stipulated time frame?

Arguments of the Parties

Writ Applicant's Arguments

  • The writ applicant relied on the Court’s earlier judgment in Laxman Rupchand Meghwani Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, particularly paragraph 91, which quashed the appointment of Shri Raghuvir Pandya and mandated a fresh appointment process for the Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor.
  • The applicant contended that despite the judgment being upheld by the Supreme Court, no regular appointment had been made for nearly two years, violating the Court’s directions.
  • The applicant prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the earlier order and make the appointment within one month.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The State, represented by Mr. Mitesh Amin, filed an affidavit in reply confirming that no regular appointment had been made but the charge was given to Shri Manoj R. Darji as the in-charge Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor.
  • The State submitted that the appointment process was in progress, with a panel being called for in consultation with the Principal District Judge as per Section 24(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Rule 4(5) of the Law Officers Rules 2009.
  • The State highlighted that the appointment of Shri Raghuvir Pandya had been cancelled by notification dated 30.11.2015 pursuant to the Court’s direction.
  • Mr. Amin stated that the State Government had decided on a particular person for the post and expected to finalize the appointment within six weeks from the date of the order, thus requesting no further adjudication.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Laxman Rupchand Meghwani Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2016 (2) GLR 1671 Quashing of improper appointment of Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor; guidelines for fresh appointment process. The Court relied on this precedent to emphasize the necessity of a lawful and proper appointment process and to direct compliance with its prior judgment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted the prior quashing of the appointment of Shri Raghuvir Pandya and the directions issued for a fresh appointment process. It acknowledged the Supreme Court’s affirmation of this judgment. The Court considered the affidavit filed by the State indicating that the appointment process had commenced in accordance with the prescribed legal provisions, including consultation with the Principal District Judge. The Court accepted the State’s submission that a decision had been made regarding the appointment and that the final notification was expected within six weeks. Given this progress and the State’s undertaking to expedite the process, the Court found no necessity for further judicial intervention at that stage.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The Court disposed of the writ application on the basis that the State Government had already initiated the process for appointing the Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor in compliance with the Court’s prior directions. The direct effect is that the State is expected to complete the appointment within six weeks. The Court permitted the writ applicant to return in case of any difficulty, thereby keeping the matter open for future consideration if necessary. No new precedent was established by this order.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    LAXMANBHAI RUPCHAND MEGHWANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

    Date : 22/11/2017 ORAL ORDER

    1. By this writapplication under Article226 of the Constitution of India, the writapplicant has prayed for the following reliefs: 11(A) to allow this application. (B) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondent no.1 to 3 herein to appoint the Government Pleader/ Public Prosecutor for Vadodara, District Vadodara urgently

    i.e. within a period of one month. (C) pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this application to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondents to comply with the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court in order dated 30.10.2016 passed in SCR.A No.3734/15 and allied matters for appointment of Government Pleader/ Public Prosecutor for Vadodara within a period of one month. (D) to award cost of this petition. (E) to pass any other further order which this court deems fit and proper. R/SCR.A/8151/2017 ORDER

    2. The genesis of this litigation lies in the judgment and order pronounced by this Court in the case of 'Laxman Rupchand Meghwani Vs. State of Gujarat and others' reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1671. In the case of Laxman Rupchand Meghwani (supra), the challenge was to the appointment of one Shri Raghuvir Pandya as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor at Vadodara. This Court quashed the appointment for the various reasons assigned in the judgment. This Court also issued certain directions as to how a Public Prosecutor in the District should be appointed.

    3. The judgment of this Court was carried before the Supreme Court by filing two Special Leave Petitions. The Supreme Court declined to interfere and the judgment and order of this Court was ultimately affirmed. It has been almost two years bynow, but the State Government has not appointed any particular person as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor at Vadodara in accordance with the guidelines issued by this Court in the judgment. In such circumstances, the writapplicant has come before this Court with this writapplication praying for an appropriate relief.

    4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, Mr. Mitesh Amin, the learned Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State. Mr. Amin tenders an affidavitinreply filed by the State of Gujarat, duly affirmed by the Deputy Secretary, Legal Department. The affidavitinreply is ordered to be taken on record. In the affidavit, the following has been stated.

    6. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has not in the petition relied upon the information received under the Right to Information Act wherein it is provided that no regular appointment of Government Pleader/ Public Prosecutor is made in the district of Vadodara and that the charge is given to one Shri Manoj R. Darji who R/SCR.A/8151/2017 ORDER is incharge Government Pleader/ Public Prosecutor.

    7. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has relied upon a reported decision of this Honble Court reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1671 in the case of Laman Rupchand Meghwani Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. more particularly paragraph 91 which reads as under:

    91 For the foregoing reasons, all the three writ applications are allowed. As a sequitur, the appointment of the respondent No.3 as the Government PleadercumPublic Prosecutor is quashed. It is open to the Government to call for a fresh panel from the District Magistrate for appointment to the post of Government Pleader cumPublic Prosecutor. In case a fresh panel is called for, the District Magistrate shall, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, prepare a panel a fresh in accordance with law, and forward the same to the Government for its consideration. Pending the appointment of the Government PleadercumPublic Prosecutor a fresh, it is open to the authority concerned to make an interim arrangement till the appointment is made a fresh. This order came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Ape Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.117119 of 2016, however, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2016. The State further preferred review petitions before the Hon'ble Ape Court being Review Petition (Criminal) No.29431 of 2016. Even the review petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2016. A Copy of the order dated 15.01.2016 and 30.08.2016 are annexed herewith and marked as AnneureR1.

    8. It is respectfully submitted that pursuant to the present petition the department immediately vide notification dated 30.11.2015 cancel the appointment of the Government Pleader/ Public Prosecutor of Vadodara District Shri RAguvir Pandya and the charge was given to Shri Manoj R. Darji. A copy of notification dated 30.11.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as AnneureR2.

    9. It is respectfully submitted that the Legal Department vide communication dated 16.11.201 called for the panel for district Government Pleader/ Public Prosecutor. The communication is clearly provides that as per Section24(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Rule 4(5) of the Law Officers Rules2009 the panel is to be prepared in consultation with the Principal District Judge. This communication dated 16.11.2017 is forwarded to the District Magistrate and the necessary action would be taken after the panel is received from District Magistrates. The deponent humbly prays before this Hon'ble Court for grant of some time to follow the procedure with an undertaking to expedite the same. A copy of the communication R/SCR.A/8151/2017 ORDER dated 16.11.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as AnneureR3.

    10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition may be disposed of with appropriate directions. VERTIFICATION

    1. What is stated in paragraphs are statements of facts derived from the relevant record and files and are true to the best of my knowledge and I believe the same to be true.

    2. All the documents enclosed with the affidavit in reply are the true copies of their originals. Solemnly affirmed at Gandhinagar on this 20th day of November, 2017.

    5. Mr. Amin, the learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions from the officer concerned submitted that the process for appointment of a regular District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor at Vadodara has already commenced. According to Mr. Amin, everything should by finalized with a period of six weeks from today. The State Government has taken the decision to appoint a particular person as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor at Vadodara. As the decision has already been taken and final notification is likely to be issued within a period of six weeks, no further adjudication is necessary in the matter.

    6. In such circumstances referred to above, this application is disposed of. In case of any difficulty, it shall be open for the writ applicant to come back this Court. Direct service is permitted. (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) aruna

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    LAXMANBHAI RUPCHAND MEGHWANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
    (Nov 22, 2017)