Bombay High Court
Suhas Hanumant Sorate vs State Of Maha. Thr. Prin. Secr. ... on 5 April, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
1 W.P.(St.)No.5245.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 5245 OF 2021
Suhas Hanumant Sorate,
..VS..
The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy
Development & Fisheries Department, Mumbai and Anr.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. B. Vagyani, Advocate with Shri P. P. More, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 05.04.2021
Hearing is conducted through Video
Conferencing and all the learned Advocates agreed that
the audio and visual quality was proper.
2. Heard Shri Vagyani, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Leave to amend the petition including making
of proper pagination is granted, which may be carried
out on or before the next date.
3. The question involved in this petition is about
the necessity for the Pro-Chancellor while cancelling the
appointment of the nominee on the Executive Council of
the University to state reasons and that too valid reasons,
in spite of the fact that the authority held by the Pro-
Chancellor in this regard works on the principle of
Doctrine of Pleasure. According to the learned counsel
for the petitioner, there is a need for the Pro-Chancellor
to assign valid reasons before he cancels the appointment
of nominated Member. He has relied upon several
judgments rendered in this regard by the Co-ordinate
Division Benches of this Court, one of them being the
decision given on 01.02.2021 in Writ Petition No.449 of
2021 Dattatraya Bhausaheb Pansare Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors.
4. According to us, there is also a judgment of
the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered in
the case of B. P. Singhal Vs. Union of India and Anr.,
(2010) 6 SCC 331, of which, paragraph No.34 is
relevant. In paragraph No.34 of the judgment, it is
observed that the doctrine of pleasure is not a licence to
act with unfettered discretion or to act arbitrarily,
whimsically or capriciously and that it does not dispense
with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure,
though it is noted that "at pleasure" doctrine enables the
removal of a person holding office at the pleasure of an
Authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any
notice or hearing to the person removed, and without
any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any
cause for the removal or withdrawal of pleasure.
5. Issue notice for final disposal at admission
stage to the respondents, returnable after two weeks.
6. Shri N. R. Patil, learned A.G.P. waives service
of notice for respondent No.1.
7. Having considered the interim relief granted
to the petitioner on 09.03.2021 in this very petition,
which was initially filed at the Principal Seat of this Court
at Mumbai and which relief was in operation till
31.03.2021, we direct that there shall be status-quo as of
date in relation to the present position of the petitioner,
whatever it being, on the Executive Council of the
University, until further orders.
Stand over after two weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kirtak
