Suhas Hanumant Sorate vs State Of Maha. Thr. Prin. Secr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7965 Bom

   wp1649.21                                                                   1



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                      WRIT PETITION NO.1649 OF 2021


  Suhas Hanumant Sorate,
  Age : adult, Occ. Business,
  R/at Flat No.401/402
  Royal Astonia Building
  Near New Palace Area,
  Naglla Park,
  Kolhapur                                    ... PETITIONER

           Versus

  1. The State of Maharashtra,
      through Principal Secretary,
      Animal Husbandary, Dairy
      Development and Fisheries Department,
      Having Address :
      Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400032.
     (Notice be served through
     Government Pleader, office of the
     Government Pleader and Public
     Prosecutor, Bombay High Court,
     Bench at Nagpur Bench.

  2. Maharashra Animal Husbandry and Fishery Sciences,
     University, Through its Registrar,
     Having Address : Phutala Talav Marg,
     Nagpur. Pin 44001.                   ... RESPONDENTS

                                     ....

Shri A.B.Vagyani, Advocate with Shri P.P.More, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri N.R.Patil, AGP for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

.....

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ DATE : JUNE 16, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

1. Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and

the learned counsel agreed that the audio and video quality was

proper.

2. Heard Shri A.B.Vagyani, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri N.R.Patil, learned AGP for respodent no.1.

Nobody appears for repondent no.2.

3. Initially, Shri Patil, learned AGP has sought for further

time in the matter. According to him, reply would be necessary. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no reply is necessary,

as the issue involved in this petition is identical to the issue involved

in other petitions, particularly the petitions bearing Writ Petition

No.1967/2021 (Govind Bapurao Naravate Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and others) and Writ Petition No.449/2021 (Dattatraya

Bhausaheb Pansare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), both

decided on 1st February 2021 taking an identical view that the

statute nowhere gives any right to the Government to remove the

members nominated on the Executive Council at its pleasure and

the only provision dealing with the ceasession of the membership

even of a nominated member is Section 61 of the Statute, which

can be invoked only if one of the two contigencies provided therein

arise, which contigencies were not present in those matters.

4. Having gone through the view taken by a Division

Bench at Aurangabad, we are of the view that as the issue involved

in this petition being identical one as involved in those petitions, is

squarly covered with a view earlier taken by a Division Bench at

Aurangabad. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any time to

the State and there is no need to file reply.

5. So far as this petition being squarely covered by the

view earlier taken by a Division Bench at Aurangabad is concerned,

learned AGP also agrees. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for

the parties.

6. As stated earlier, this petition is squarely covered by the

view already taken in Writ Petition Nos.1967/2021 and 449/2021,

both decided by a Division Bench at Auranagabad on 1 st February

2021. That apart, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case

of B.P. Singh Vs Union of India and Anr., (2010) 6 SCC 331, which

has already been referred to by us in our order dated 5 th April

2021 granting interim relief applies to the facts of the present case.

The Supreme Court has 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 the

principle of `Doctrine of Pleasure' would enable the removal of a

person holding office at the pleasure of an Authroity, 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. This

would mean that though the order removing a person from office

passed at the pleasure of the Authority need not disclose the cause

or the reason for which the removal is done, the cause for such

removal must exist on record and must be available for its scrutiny

whenever a Court of law requires it for scrutiny. In this case, there

is not even any cause present on record and, therefore, we find

that the exercise of the ` Doctrine of Pleasure', which has been done

in the present case, is arbitrary and whimsical.

7. In the result, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be

allowed.

8. The petition is allowed. The impugned Notification qua

the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside.

9. Rule accordingly. No costs.

                  (ANIL S. KILOR, J)                    (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)


ambulkar