Gujarat Revenue Tribunal President has to be a Judge, not a Secretary to the Govt - High Court Order upheld: SC
In the judgement, the Supreme Court was actually considering an appeal by the State of Gujarat against a judgement of the High Court which allowed the writ petition, striking down Rule 3(1)(iii)(a) of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules 1982, which conferred power upon the State Government to appoint the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, as President of the Revenue Tribunal.
The High Court had held that Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has also the trappings of a civil court and the President who man the Tribunal can only be a judicial officer, a District Judge, and hence concurrence of the High Court is necessary under Article 234 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the State Government ought to have followed the procedure laid down under Article 234 of the Constitution of India, which having not been done, Rule 3(1) (iii)(a) conferring the power on the State Government to appoint a Secretary to Government as President of the Tribunal, which is beyond the rule making powers of the State Government and therefore held ultravires the provisions of the Act and struck down.
The Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court holding, "The object of consultation is to render the consultation meaningful to serve the intended purpose. It requires the meeting of minds between the parties involved in the process of consultation on the basis of material facts and points, to evolve a correct or at least satisfactory solution. If the power can be exercised only after consultation, consultation must be conscious, effective, meaningful and purposeful. It means that the party must disclose all the facts to other party for due deliberation. The consultee must express his opinion after full consideration of the matter upon the relevant facts and quintessence. Thus, it is evident from the above that the procedure to be observed under Article 234 of the Constitution goes to the extent of the true meaning of consultative process and not an empty formality. High Court Order UPHELD.