K. Gurunathan vs. Union Of India And Ors. Union Of India And Ors. Rep By Its Secretary

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.2 SECTION PIL-W/XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 684/2016

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (MATTER IS LISTED IN RE: STATES OF MIZORAM, NAGALAND, JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND TELANGANA "ONLY" ON 17.07.2018. ) WITH SLP(C) NO. 22841/2016 (XII)

Date : 17-07-2018 These cases were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

• For Parties : Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayana, Adv. Mr. A.K. Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Shrutanjay Gopal, Adv. Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Adv. petitioner-in-person
• State of W.B. Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Verma, Adv. For M/s PLR Chambers & Co., AOR

Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Adv. Mr. K. Mayil Samy, Adv. Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR

Mr. A.K. Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR

Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Ms. Aarti Sharma, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

State of A.P.		Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR<br>Ms. Prerna Singh, AdV.
	State of Arun. Pra.	Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.<br>Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR
State of	Assam	Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR<br>Mr. Sayooj Mohandas M., Adv.
	State of Tripura	Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR<br>Mr. Ritu Raj Biswas, Adv.
State of Bihar		Mr. Siddharth Garg, Adv.<br>Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv.<br>Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR.
State of H.P.		Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AAG<br>Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv.<br>Ms. Purnima Krishna, Adv.
State of
Chhattisgarh		Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR<br>Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Adv.
State of Goa		Mr. A.N.S Nadkarni, ASG<br>Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv.<br>Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Adv.<br>Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv.<br>Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR
	State of Gujarat	Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR<br>Ms. Puja Singh, Adv.<br>Ms. Vishakha, Adv.<br>Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv.
		Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR
State of J & K		Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR<br>Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv.<br>Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.<br>Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv.
		Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, AAG<br>Ms. Priyanka, Adv.<br>Ms. Priyadarshni Priya, Adv.<br>Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR.

	State of Karnataka	Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR<br>Mr. Prakshit P. Angadi, Adv.<br>Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv.
		Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR
	State of Meghalaya	Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR<br>Mr. S.C. Ghosh, Adv.<br>Mr. S. Bhowmick, Adv.<br>Mr. Daniel Stone Lyngdoh, Adv.
	State of Nagaland	Mr. K.N. Balgopal, Sr. Adv. Gen., Nagaland<br>Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR<br>Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.<br>Mr. A.P. Mukundan, Adv.<br>Mr. Nitya Nambiar, Adv.<br>Mr. Vitso Rio, Adv.
		Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
	State of Punjab	Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR
		Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR
		Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv.<br>Mr. Ankit Roy, Adv.<br>Mr. Indrajeet Singh, Adv.<br>Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
	State of Sikkim	Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv.<br>Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv.<br>Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv.<br>For M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR
	State of Miroram	Mr. Pragyan Sharma, Adv.<br>Mr. Shikhar<br>Garg, Adv.<br>Mr. praveen Kumar Gupta, Pr. Res. Comm.<br>Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR
		Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
khand	State of Uttara	Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR<br>Ms. Monika, Adv.

UT of Puducherry Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. S. Manuraj, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. Leishangthem Roshmani Kh., AOR Ms. Maibam Babina, Adv. State of Haryana Mr. Anil Grover, AAG Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Visen, AOR State of M.P. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. State of Telangana Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv. State of Tamil Nadu Mr. K.V. Vijaya Kumar, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Mishra, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. C.K. Sasi, Adv. Mr. N. Roy, Adv. State of Mah. Ms. Suvarna Ganu, Adv. Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Re: State of Mizoram

By previous order of this Court dated 10th July, 2018 we had directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Mizoram to be personally present in Court and affidavit(s) to be filed by the State of Mizoram as well as the States of Nagaland and Telangana with regard to the present stage of the process of appointment of Lokayukta in the said States.

Insofar as the State of Mizoram is concerned, the Chief Secretary of the State of Mizoram who was required to be personally present in Court has explained his inability to be personally present on account of certain personal difficulties. Having regard to the grounds stated and also the fact that an affidavit has been filed we dispense with the personal appearance of the Chief Secretary of the State of Mizoram.

Mr. Pragyan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State of Mizoram has submitted that presently the process for appointment of Lokayukta is on and the Search Committee is due to hold its deliberations shortly. Learned counsel has also submitted that the State would expect that the appointment of Chairman and Member(s) of the Lokayukta will be made within a period of two months from today.

On the basis of the aforesaid statement made we permit the State of Mizoram to complete the process of appointment of Chairman and Member(s) of the Lokayukta within the aforesaid period of two months and report to the Court at the end of the said period of two months.

2. Re: State of Nagaland

Report of the action taken by the State of Nagaland in the matter of appointment of Lokayukta has been laid before the Court by means of an affidavit of the Competent Authority. A perusal of the said affidavit would go to show that the Search Committee has been constituted and is expected to hold its deliberations and make its recommendations to the Selection Committee within a period of four weeks.

Without going into any further details of the process indicated in the affidavit we grant two months' time to the State of Nagaland to finalize the process for appointment of Chairman and Member(s) of the Lokayukta and report to the Court of the action taken at the end of two months from today.

3. Re: State of Jammu & Kashmir

Insofar as the State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned, the question that is required to be decided at this stage is whether in view of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission, 2002 and Jammu and Kashmir State Vigilance Commission Act, 2011 it would be necessary for the State to have the institution of Lokayukta.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed before the Court certain documents and written submissions. Let the same be filed by means of an affidavit.

4. Re:State of Telangana

We have heard the learned counsel for the State of Telangana and considered the affidavit dated 14th July, 2018 filed on behalf of the respondent – State.

In the said affidavit, it has been stated that a meeting of the Selection Committee has been convened on 28th July, 2018 for the purpose of selecting a person to be appointed as Lokayukta.

As meeting of the Selection Committee has been convened on 28th July, 2018, the Court would expect the process of appointment of the Lokayukta to be completed withing a period of two months from today.

List the cases along with all other cases after three months i.e. on 24th October, 2018.

[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]

AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER