Bombay High Court
Dattatraya Bhausaheb Pansare vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 February, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 wp 449.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 449 OF 2021
Dattatraya Bhausaheb Pansare .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. V. S. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri P. G. Rodge, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 01ST FEBRUARY, 2021.
FINAL ORDER :
. The petitioner is nominated on the Executive Council of
respondent No. 2 - University under notification dated
18.02.2019. The appointment was until further orders or for a
period of three years, whichever is earlier.
2. The similar issue was dealt with by this Bench in Writ
Petition No. 802 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.1168 of 2015. The
said writ petitions are decided by a common judgment dated
21.07.2016, to which one of us (S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) was a
party. In the said judgment it is observed thus:
"11. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition
that, if, the 'doctrine of pleasure' is applied the same
was unbridled power to remove the person who has been
2 wp 449.21
nominated but then, the said power is to be prescribed
by the Statute. In the present case, the Statute nowhere
give right to the Government to remove the members
nominated at its pleasure. The only provision dealing
with the ceasession of the membership even of a
nominated member is section 61 of the statute. Only two
contingencies are provided therein i.e. the member may
resign or he is convicted by a competent court for an
offence involving moral turpitude save and except the
same there is no other provision dealing with the
ceasession of membership of a nominated member to
the Executive Council.
12. Even if, it is assumed that the State has exercised
its powers and has acted at its pleasure still even
applicability of the said doctrine has not been properly
resorted to by the Respondent in as much as no cause is
spelt out in the orders cancelling the nominations of the
Petitioners. The orders does not state the reason nor the
affidavit states that the cause existed for cancelling the
nominations of the Petitioners the Government cannot
act arbitrarily. The orders does not whisper about the
cause, the same is not reflected even by the
circumstances nor by the affidavit in reply filed by the
Respondents.
13. As this court in Writ Petition No.2949/2015 vide
order dated 6.5.2016 had observed that, even
whileinvoking the 'doctrine of pleasure' it is imperative
that cause must exist in absence thereof the orders
cancelling the nominations are bad in law."
4. In the present matter also, the similar provisions are
involved. The order does not state the reason for cancelling the
nomination of the petitioner.
5. In light of the above, the impugned notification, qua the
3 wp 449.21
petitioner is quashed and set aside.
6. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Feb. 21
