Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, B. Balakrishna, a retired District Judge, challenged a notification dated 11.07.2019 issued by the State of Karnataka appointing him as a Judicial Member of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. The petitioner contended that the appointment was made without prior consultation with the High Court, as required under Section 7(7) of the Act. The court examined the language of Section 7(7), which states that the Judicial Member shall be appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court. The court held that the word 'shall' imposes a mandatory duty, and consultation with the High Court is a condition precedent for a valid appointment. Since the impugned notification was issued without such consultation, it was invalid and liable to be quashed. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification, leaving it open to the State Government to initiate fresh appointment proceedings in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Appointment of Judicial Member - Consultation with High Court - Section 7(7) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 - The petitioner, a retired District Judge, was appointed as Judicial Member of the Special Court without consultation with the High Court. The court held that the requirement of consultation with the High Court under Section 7(7) is mandatory and not directory. The impugned notification was quashed as it was issued without such consultation. (Paras 1-5) B) Interpretation of Statutes - Mandatory vs Directory - Consultation Requirement - Section 7(7) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 - The court interpreted the word 'shall' in Section 7(7) as mandatory, emphasizing that consultation with the High Court is essential for the validity of appointment of a Judicial Member. The court relied on the principle that where a statute prescribes a mode of appointment, it must be strictly followed. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of a retired District Judge as Judicial Member of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court without prior consultation with the High Court is valid under Section 7(7) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notification dated 11.07.2019. The court held that the requirement of consultation with the High Court under Section 7(7) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 is mandatory. The State Government was left at liberty to initiate fresh appointment proceedings in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Appointment of Judicial Member must be made in consultation with the High Court
- Consultation with High Court is mandatory under Section 7(7) of the Act
- Notification without prior consultation is invalid and liable to be quashed
