Gujarat govt on Thur moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court verdict upholding the appointment of Justice (retd) R A Mehta as the Lokayukta by the Governor on the ground that it was unconstitutional as it was done without the consent of the state govt.

In a hurriedly filed petition on Thursday, the state government sought stay of Wednesday’s judgement of the Gujarat High Court and also of the 25^th August, 2011 order of Governor Kamla Beniwal by which the warrant of appointment of Justice Mehta as Lokayukta was passed.

The state government contended that appointment order was passed without following due procedure in a wholly unconstitutional manner which was illegal.

In the petition filed through advocate Mahesh Agarwal, Gujarat Government said substantial questions of law have arisen, including that of absence of advice by the council of ministers on the appointment of Lokayukta by the Governor.

It also objected to the use of very harsh expressions and language against Chief Minister Narendra Modi by the high court.

The high court had on Wednesday sharply criticised Modi for his “pranks” that had sparked a “constitutional mini crisis”.

However, challenging the judgment, the state government said “the Governor, while exercising function under section 3 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986, is to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers headed by Chief Minister and is not required to exercise the said function in the individual and personal capacity and discretion.

“In the present case, there has never been any advice by the council of ministers for the appointment in question and that, therefore, on this ground alone, the action under challenge deserves to be held constitutionally bad,” the petiiton said.

Gujarat Government said the warrant for appointment of Justice Mehta as Lokayukta could not have been issued and that too through the Governor without the aid and advice of the council of ministers.

Maintaining that the views and say of the council of ministers of the state cannot be allowed to be suffocated, the petition said that has been given a total goby.

The state government said the personal descretion excercised by the governor in unilaterally issuing the warrant of appointment of Lokayukta was unwarranted.

In the petition, the Gujarat government said that when the consultation process for the appointment was undergoing, the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly on many occasion did not participate in the meeting.

The high court had on Wednesday rejected the plea of Gujarat government, three months after it had given a split verdict.

Justice V M Sahai, who decided the matter as a third judge said the “pranks” played by the Chief Minister on the Lokayukta issue “demonstrates deconstruction of our democracy”.

He said Modi’s “questionable” conduct of “stonewalling” the appointment of Justice Mehta threatened the rule of law.

The judgment said there was no good reason to reject the name of Justice Mehta once the objections of the Chief Minister had been overruled by the Chief Justice.

He described Modi’s refusal to accept Justice Mehta’s appointment as advised by the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice as spiteful and challenging.

He said the action demonstrated a “false sense of invincibility” on Modi’s part. Modi had insisted on Justice J R Vora to be appointed as Lokayukta but this was not accepted by the Chief Justice on the ground that the judge had been appointed as the Director of the Gujarat State Judicial Academy.

The Governor had on 25^th August last year appointed Justice Mehta to the post of Lokayukta, which had been lying vacant for the last eight years.

The state government had challenged the appointment in the High Court the very next day, saying the Governor had “bypassed” the state government.

Modi had maintained that the Governor had acted unconstitutionally in selecting the ombudsman as the state government had not been consulted.

On 11^th October, a division bench of the High Court had given a split verdict on the appointment issue.

While one of the judges had upheld the decision of the Governor, another judge had quashed the warrant of appointment issued by him, terming it unconstitutional.

The matter was then referred to Justice Sahai.