M. MANOHAR REDDY & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

M. MANOHAR REDDY & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Respondent No. 3 was unaware of any criminal case pending in which he was named as accused; the consultative process for appointment was not vitiated as the fact was unknown to all authorities involved; there was no suppression of material fact. Writ of quo warranto for quashing his appointment does not lie, and the petition is dismissed as lacking merit and bona fides.

Parties
Petitioner: M. Manohar Reddy; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: N.V. Ramana; Respondent: Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Writ of Quo Warranto, Effective Consultation, Eligibility and Suitability of Judges, Suppression of Material Facts
Constitutional Law Judicial Appointments Public Interest Litigation Writ of Quo Warranto Effective Consultation Eligibility and Suitability of Judges Suppression of Material Facts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. Manohar Reddy

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

N.V. Ramana

Respondent

Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appointment of respondent No. 3 as Judge of High Court is liable to be quashed for lack of effective consultation due to non-consideration of allegedly pending criminal case
  2. 2 Whether suppression of material fact by respondent No. 3 or at his behest vitiates the appointment process
  3. 3 Whether writ of quo warranto lies when a fact was unknown to appointing authorities

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent No. 3 was unaware of any criminal case pending in which he was named as accused; the consultative process for appointment was not vitiated as the fact was unknown to all authorities involved; there was no suppression of material fact. Writ of quo warranto for quashing his appointment does not lie, and the petition is dismissed as lacking merit and bona fides.

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed

Orders

  • Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- payable by each of the two petitioners to the welfare fund of Andhra Pradesh High Court employees within four weeks