Common Cause & Anr. vs Union of India & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

19 February 2019

Case No.

Writ Petition (C) No. 54 of 2019

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha

Citation

[2019] 3 S.C.R. 1067 : 2019 INSC 228

Headnote

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946:

s. 4A – Appointment of interim Director of CBI – Challenged in petition u/Art. 32 of the Constitution – Seeking quashing of the order appointing interim Director and also seeking direction to appoint a regular Director of CBI – Plea taken that the appointment of interim Director was not as per s.4A and was arbitrary and illegal – Held: It is apparent from the resolution passed by the High Powered Selection Committee constituted u/s. 4A that appointment of the interim Director was authorised by the Committee – Therefore, the appointment was not unauthorised or illegal – The petition was filed in undue haste without verifying the fact as to whether the appointment was authorised – Since the regular Director has been appointed, the main prayer of the writ also stands satisfied. Dismissing the Writ petition, the Court

HELD: It is clear from the resolution passed by the High Powered Selection Committee on 9/10th January, 2019 that the appointment of interim Director had been authorised by the Committee under section 4A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Thus, the plea that the Committee has not authorised the appointment of interim Director is totally misconceived and petitioners have failed to verify the aforesaid facts and the petition has been filed in undue haste without verifying the fact whether the appointment has been authorised by the Committee for appointment of Director constituted under section 4A of the Act. [Paras 14 and 16][1074-G; 1075-C]

2. Petitioner had also prayed for disclosure as to what was the process being adopted by the Government to shortlist the candidates. In reply to the application, Petitioner No.2 was advised to take recourse to appeal before the appellate authority under the RTI Act. It appears that the petitioner has not filed any appeal/s. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the matter on the said ground too. [Paras 18 and 19][1076-B; F]

3. Since the regular Director has been appointed, the main prayer of the petitioner stands satisfied and there is absolutely no justification to continue with this writ petition in the aforesaid circumstances. [Para 20][1076-G]

Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 226 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595 ; Union of India v. Namit Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 359 : [2013] 13

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct Union of India to appoint a regular Director of CBI forthwith by following the procedure laid down in section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 10.1.2019 issued by Union of India appointing Mr. Nageshwar Rao as the interim Director of CBI. A further prayer has been made to issue appropriate writ or direction to the Union of India to

View Subscription Plans →