Karnataka High Court
Khusro Quraishi vs State Of Karnataka on 8 March, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2012 (3) AIR KAR R 136, AIR 2012 (NOC) (SUPP) 1089 (KAR.), (2012) 5 KANT LJ 116, (2012) 3 KCCR 1933, AIR 2012 (NOC) (SUPP) 992 (KAR)
Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale, L.Narayana Swamy
4?)
thereof, the petitioner filed W.P. No.3894€201O and prayed
for declaration that the order dated 25.11.2010 is
the powers of the Government under the A ~
Aet being arbitrary, unreasonable" and .thel"
principles of fairness and natural.:'jus'tiee.
interim order was passed either«.__in thle~_writg petitio11..,org in
writ appeal and as a result thereof, res.po.ndentV}no.4 Sri.
Anwar Manippady of the
Commission and is holding" the'eharge*till'*lthis date.
6. leading to these
two matt,ers"'ar"e t'he::.p.etltioner was appointed as
Chairman-. lvide order dated 25.2.2009
issued of Karnataka under sub-
secfdjon t{.2)(a) lofdsiection 3 and section 4 of the Act with
Zliinmediate .jef£ect 'until further orders'. Along with the
:"peti',tion'erl;~v.,_six""other persons were also nominated as
mernbezfs of" the Commission. Thus, the Commission was
Vlggaoonstituted vide order dated 25.2.2009, as provided for
2. A section 3, with inimediate effect until further orders.
..-Thereafter, it is alleged that respondent no.3 who was
Chaimian of the Commission and in_his "placei--.nomina1;egd' respondent no.4 -- Anwar Manippadygvvith imnicdilate éfféc+,.*~_ This order is impugned in W.Pl.""N:ol'.4761
8. We have heard..l:ie.arnecig'counsel -for the parties at length and with. the entire material placed The grounds of challenge, law ljlayararn, learned senior counsel are two fold. Firstly, he submitted that did not follow the procedure clontemiplated section 5 of the Act for removal of~rhea,/,"\'petitionerVullrom the post of Chairman of the other words, he submitted that no reasonable"loplportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned notification / order 25.11.2010. Secondly, he submitted the impugned action of removal was malafide exercise of power and that the action taken by the State Government invoking doctrine of pleasure was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. He submitted, merely because the provisions contained in section 4 of the Act use the expression " subject to the Provided that five members including the__.___ Chairman shall be from amongst the niinorities'-.L~. communities; and
(b) ...... . .
4. Term of office and condition__s...of_ser'_J'iee' of the Chairman and members it pleasure of the Government, thell'Chai1'ml?3i11lA. and members of the Commissioiné shall ho1d_o'ffioevWfor a term of three years from}: the date they iassuifme their offices.
(2) ............... .. ._ (3) .............. _ (4) .........
(5) ....... " i ' i office of membership.-
(ll A disqualified for being appointed as being Continued as the ; 'Chairman, or a member as the case may be, if It . "1_s'_of;;ulnsound mind and stands so declared bya competent Court; or (C) so id)
(g) has in the opinion of the Government, so,' abused the position of chairperson or as to render that person's continuance is detrimental to the interests of the or the public interest:
Provided that no person shall'lbeiirernovedvlpl'under' in this clause until that person 'beeri'V:giv§en_/a reasonable opportunity llofjbeing matter. a A ._ it (2) Any person under sub--section (1) shall], he by the Government. *'_' --
From barelperusal of»theffaforementioned provisions, it is clear, theevpresént .cas_e, the petitioner was appointed under sub--section' section 3 and the order / notificationihofv his appointment dated 25.2.2009 was ; «. _Car§cél1€_'C1.:by the nlotification / order dated 25.11.2010 issued "sgb}'se,§'m;n (1) of section 4 of the Act. The cancellations:'ioflthe petitioner's appointment as Chainnan of the Commission which resulted in his removal was A fhindlubitably issued under section 4 and not under section 5 A3' 18 justice. (See KRISHNA Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 8: OTHERS (2001) 2 SCC 441) Moreover, removal"-i2fi.r.tl1.e present case, in our opinion,neither casts ar:.y"stig.ma'"noi' A leads to any penal consequences.» cl-"_4eaI',LV1revealsythe doctrine of pleasure, which is implicit Tsection_V"4..of pp
12. In the present Case, Tthe'petitiolrierlyvas appointed as Chairman of the fu.rtherordTers" and not for a fixed term of 3 under section
4. The petiti0ree£r.doesTTT of the State or a member of "borders. The petitioner accepted lpiis eyes. In other words, the petitioner acce.pted' appointment though it was not made; for fixed' ter.1n__s___of 3 years. It clearly shows that the »GCV§II1l"l'l€'I'i3C:"l'(3'S€I'V€d its right to, either continue the H peti-tioneidfo-r touappoint any other person in his place. The petitioner, "therefore, cannot contend that in View of section 4 the Act, he cannot be discontinued / removed by the Vfiovernment till he completes the period of 3 years. If the
-~-pietitioner claims that his appointment ought to have been 2/7 show that the impugned decision was arbitrary andp'p"Hp malafide. All the acts or the instances quoted petition and to which our attention was invited, acc«ofrdEritgi to the petitioner, show malafide exerciseulof«povlrer_:lnfi:,tlie part of respondent No.3--Minister. The it the nature of statements made to tii.el'1I1_€dia."duringl 'the"~-illéist' week of October, 2010, i.e.;_..just impugned notification was vis'si;ied desire or intention of the Cf?>v-6¥"1mc'nt"'-5?? chairman resulting in his no.4 in his place. * no.3 made statementsito also to the TV channel stating that' .__"an the petitioner as Chairman' ofppthelbomriiission 'had already been passed but comeifinto .effectlalfter three weeks in View of the stay granted. Court". Except the said statement 7"'vappeare_d in. 'news papers / T.V. channel there is nothing 'Ont?-record to infer that such decision was taken byJ.f_ne_ 'C-overnment. We find, the statements appeared l""i.._ir1"ldifi?erent newspapers and so also in the news 25 legal status of independent functioning conterfln:p'la:ted~., under the Act and the Rules.
16. According to the p;etitione:f,"'.gg acts / incidents set out by him in thelpetition, sliow malafide exercise of power. It notlbe: oflplace to observe that respondent'..no.3_.=miniesteribeing of the Government, if true, such statements to He ought to have, had in approaching the media or even treating the Commissi0Tl_ of the Government or its subordinate«,_,_l .The._ question, however, is whether such acts/iincildents "wou__l_d_v be sufficient to hold malafide 'A«or1.:ti1e_ part of the petitioner. A glance at the to the media, would show that the .g ministerconvieyed the proposed decision of the Government chganglesthe Chairman of the Commission. Similarly, the C g'_.co!rre's:pondence placed on record, in particular, the "aloresaid letter addressed to the petitioner and the Commission would further show that whatever was stated §x 27 rnalafides would at the most icons'titute"ii».acts' administration. But we arernot called upon inv.estigate -. "
into acts of rnal administration'"either no.3 or the Government of at the relevant time. That is not the 'scopes us and we decline to enter It is one thing to say that r of mis rule and another animus against the petitioner; «whichtllivastt'the'~operative cause of his removal from the plostxlof We are concerned only with thellatter li.yrnited"is"s'ue, not with the former popular issue. L' We cannot the petitioner to side--track the issue and escape of establishing hostility and malus animus 'on the part of respondent no.3 by diverting our attention to the incidents quoted in the petition. In our opinion, none of the incidents / actions taken by respondent "no.3 includes any component of malafides against the petitioner. It is Well settled that the burden of establishing malafides is Very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegation of malafides are often more easily made than §\ 28 proved and the very seriousness of such allegation demands proof of a high order of credibility.
17. In the present case, when we rnalcle _p query to learned senior counsel appearing for-ithel petitioner as to whether there was anyVreasori__for_ responrleiitl' nd',3~.rt.o'~.. have grudge or to have hostilit'y*vg.corimalus' the petitioner. In all fairness hiszreplvylin thenegative. In other words, he stated the reasons as to why the 1ni.nlster remove him as a Chairman.::- ""lYi.e our attention was invited_.by. .Vx.respond.eiit no.3 minister being a part olxthe never wanted the petitioner to act contraiv the State Government and / or to ,i.I}nlplementl'lthe__p0licies of the Central Government of .lCongrevss..anfidv,/ or wanted to entertain party workers so as to 'make tlieir.par,t3} strong.
'Thus, in our opinion, the second ground of challenge "I"z1lso"'«deserves to be rejected. Order accordingly. In the 29 as well as the writ petition fai1«._and Costs.
result, the writ appeal dismissed as such. No sak