The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Justices S.G.Dige and S.V. Gangapurwala opined that mere using the word public interest cannot become a ground for removal of petitioner as valid reasons are required for the same.
Facts
The petitioner is appointed as a Part Time Chairman of Aurangabad Housing and Development Board, Aurangabad (“the Board”) by respondent no.1 (State Government). A notification was issued under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (“the said Act”) by respondent no.1 and by the said notification, the appointment of the petitioner as Part Time Chairman is cancelled. The said notification was communicated to the petitioner on 11th February 2020. Same are assailed in the present Writ Petition.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The petitioner is removed from the post in the public interest, but no reason is given for removal of the petitioner from the post of Part Time Chairman. The Notification dated 31.01.2020 is contrary to the provisions of the said Act. The said action of the respondent is not as per the procedure contemplated in the said Act. The respondent has nowhere mentioned in the Notification what is the public interest involved for issuing such notification. Hence prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Notification along with the communication dated 11th February 2020.
Respondent: The appointment of the petitioner is purely on the pleasure of the State Government. The provisions of the said Act do not preclude the State Government from exercise of its powers resorting to Doctrine of Pleasure for nominating a more suitable person. The petitioner has not preferred any representation before the State Government for seeking further details in respect of the termination order. The present Petition is filed on assumption that the State Government has not applied its mind while cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.
Observations of the Court
The Bench referred to various judgments by the Apex Court and observed that:
“The petitioner is appointed by the Government and the provisions of section 12(2) of the said Act gives right to the State Government to remove the petitioner at its pleasure. The provision does not require the State Government to adhere to the principles of natural justice before cancelling his membership nor it mandates issuance of any show-cause notice. Once Doctrine of Pleasure is applicable then neither the principle of natural justice would step in nor any question of giving opportunity before removal would arise…In said Notification nowhere mentioned what is `public interest’... The question is even if "at pleasure" doctrine is applied, then whether the State Government has unbridled power of removal without any cause or reason. Whenever the law bestows discretion in any authority, the said discretion cannot be an arbitrary or unregulated discretion, but the same must be exercised fairly.”
“No reason has been set out by the State Government for removal of petitioner, when the admitted position is that the removal of the petitioner is on account of Doctrine of Pleasure…withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the authority but can only be for valid reasons. Mere using the word public interest cannot become a ground for removal of petitioner from the Board. There should be valid reasons for removal.”
Judgment
The impugned Notification and communication dated 11.02.2020 were set aside. This order will not preclude the State Government from taking appropriate action of removal of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Case Name: Sanjay S/o Kisanrao Kenekar vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: WRIT PETITION NO.2852 OF 2020
Bench: Justice S.G.Dige, Justice S.V. Gangapurwala
Decided on: 4th March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
