The Apex Court dismissed Appeal of State of Gujarat, in respect of the appointment of the Secretary as the President of Revenue Tribunal

While Dismissing Civil Appeal No.7208 of 2012 preferred by State of Gujarat, against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.8209 of 1988, by way of which the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association, striking down Rule 3(1)(iii)(a) of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘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 Hon. Apex Court has finally concluded that" We do not have any hesitation in concurring with the finding recorded by the High Court that the Tribunal is akin to a court and performs similar functions." The Supreme Court has further defined the process of consultation that " 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.

SC: " A stranger can hardly claim locus standi in PIL"

Recently in the matters of a Public Interest Litigation against Mr. Rahul Gandhi and others, the Hon Apex Court has observed that "Where a person is a stranger/unknown to the parties and has no interest in the outcome of the litigation, he can hardly claim locus standi to file such petition. There could be cases where a public spirited person bonafidely brings petition in relation to violation of fundamental rights, particularly in habeas corpus petitions, but even in such cases, the person should have some demonstrable interest or relationship to the involved persons, personally or for the benefit of the public at large, in a PIL."

SC : "Public Interest Litigation should not be publicity oriented"

Recently in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra in which Hon'ble Pasayat, J. has observed and warned that "Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta"