Bombay High Court
Dattatray Bhausaheb Pansare vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 19 January, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 WRIT PETITION NO.3954 OF 2020
Dattatraya Bhausaheb Pansare, ... Petitioner
Age 46 years, Occu: Business
R/o Manik Nagar, Opp. Shilapa Gardan
Lane No.2, Shri Dattakrupa Niwas,
Ahmednagar
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy
Development and Fisheries Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32
2. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, ... Respondents
Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar
Through its Registrar.
Mr. N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S. g. Karlekar, A.G.P. for respondent State
Mr. Manish N. Navandar, Advocate for respondents No.2
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 19th January, 2021
ORDER
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned
counsel for respective parties taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner is nominated on the Executive Council of respondent
No.2 - University under notification dated 22.08.2019. The appointment
was until further orders or for a period of three years, whichever is earlier.
3. 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 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 while
invoking 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.
Nomination of the petitioner is canceled by the State by order dated
05.03.2019. The order does not state the reason for cancelling the
nomination of the petitioner.
5. In light of the above, the impugned notification, is quashed and
set aside.
6. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). No costs.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)
JPC
