Chattisgarh High Court
Kartik Ram Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 March, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:8141
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order reserved on 21.02.2024
Order delivered on 07.03.2024
WPC No. 71 of 2024
Ashwani Kumar Sahu S/o Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o
365, Patora, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development
And Biotechnology Department, Ministry, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar
(C.G.)
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board,
Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Sector 24, Kayabandha, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisagarh
3. R. K. Rathor Appointed As Joint Director (Agriculture) Divisional
Office, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
---Respondents
AND WPC No. 70 of 2024 Rajendra Shukla S/o Jauharilal Shukla Aged About 51 Years R/o C- 78, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology Department, Ministry, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.)
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Sector 24, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Manoj Kumar Chouhan Appointed As Joint Director (Agriculture) Divisional Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
----Respondents AND WPC No. 72 of 2024 Sushil Sharma S/o Late Mangal Prasad Sharma Aged About 57 Years R/o Mangal Niwas, In Front Of Lokoutsav Maidan, Hathnipara, Ward No.02, Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 2
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology Department, Ministry, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.)
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Sector-24, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Balwant Narayan Verma Appointed As Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Simga, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents AND WPC No. 80 of 2024 Bholaram Deshmukh S/o Kashi Ram Deshmukh, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Dudhli, Post Dudhli, Tehsil Dondilohara, District :
Balod, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology Department, Ministry, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Sector 24, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Chandrakant Kaushik Posted As Upper Collector, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents AND WPC No. 81 of 2024 Gopesh Dhruw S/o Manthir Lal Dhruw Aged About 43 Years R/o Alekhuta, Post Sundarkera, Tehsil Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology Department, Ministry, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.)
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhail Patel Bhawan, Sector 24, Kayabandha, Atal Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 3 Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Rajendra Dewangan Appointed As Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Nawapara District Raipur (C.G.)
----Respondents AND WPC No. 88 of 2024 Rajendra Kumar Soni S/o Makhanlal Soni Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sankra, Tehsil Nagri, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnolohy Department, Ministry, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Sector 24, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Harik Ram Dhruw Appointed As Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Nagari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents AND WPC No. 587 of 2024 Heeralal @ Heera Banjare S/o Shri Raju Ram Banjare Aged About 50 Years Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Mahasamund, R/o House No. 225, Ward No. 03, Ayodhya Nagar, Mahasamund, Thana - Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Divisional Office Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. Director Krishi Vipnan Board Raipur, Office Of Director, Krishi Vipnam Board, Sector-24, Sardar Vallabhai Patel Bhawan, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4. Collector, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.)
5. Faguram Kashyap Deputy Director Agriculture Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 4
----Respondents AND WPC No. 595 of 2024 Atma Kshatriya S/o Late Shri B.S. Kshatriya Aged About 60 Years R/o Deendayal Upadhyay Ward, Mungeli, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Bio-Technology Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Dinesh Kumar Vyahar Agriculture And Officer -In-Charge Agriculture Produce Market Committee Mungeli, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents AND WPC No. 596 of 2024 Tejan Chandrakar S/o Shri Purushottam Lal Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bagbahra, R/o Ward No.- 02, Basuladabari Mahasamund, Thana, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agricultural Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Divisional Office Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Director Krishi Vipnan Board Raipur, Office Of Director, Krishi Vipnan Board, Sector- 24, Sardar Vallabhai Patel Bhawan, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Collector Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
5. Shri L. N. Netam Sr. Agriculture Development Officer Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents AND Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 5 WPC No. 606 of 2024
1. Sanju Singh Chandel S/o Late Shri Pulendra Singh Chandel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chhirahidih, Post Masulgondi Via Gandai, Tahsil Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, (Chairman, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh)
2. Smt. Janaki Maravi W/o Govardhan Maravi, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Post Salhewara, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, (Vice Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee, Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh)
3. Kishun Mirche S/o Premlal, Aged About 54 Years R/o Belgoan, Post Bundeli, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh) Members Of Agricultural Produce Market Committee Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh.
4. Faruque Memon S/o Late Abdul Aziz, Aged About 45 Years R/o And Post Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh. Members Of Agricultural Produce Market Committee Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh.
5. Saturghan Chandel S/o Late Same Lal, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Maradkathera, Post Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh. Members Of Agricultural Produce Market Committee Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh.
6. Smt. Priyanka Janghel W/o Kamdev Janghel, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Otebandh, Post Bundeli, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh. Members Of Agricultural Produce Market Committee Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh.
7. Ramanand Sahu S/o Nathuram, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Borai, Post Kutelikala District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh. Members Of Agricultural Produce Market Committee Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhandan Gandai Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Biotechnology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Agriculture Marketing Board, Sector -24, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Kayabandha, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Collector, District Khairagarh Chuikhandan Gandai, District :
Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh
4. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gandai Through Its Secretary, Gandai, Tahsil Gandai, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 6
5. C. K. Uike, Sr. Agricultural Development Officer, Chhuikhadan, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents AND WPC No. 650 of 2024 Kartik Ram Thakur S/o Tilakram Thakur, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Rajadera, Post Bhithidih, Tehsil Pithora, District :
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology Department, Ministry, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Sector 24, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents AND WPC No. 667 of 2024 Manjeet Singh Saluja S/o Darshan Singh Saluja Aged About 69 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Mandeep Singh Saluja) R/o 128, Behind Gurudwara, Gaurunanak Ward, Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Framers Welfare And Biotechnology Department, Ministry, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.)
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Sector 24, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Senior Agricultural Development Officer Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
----Respondents AND WPC No. 671 of 2024 Hemlal Sao S/o Sardha Sao Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Malda, Post- Jhalmala, Tahsil- Pusaur, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 7
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Bio-Technology Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Anil Kumar Verma Deputy Director Agriculture Raigarh, District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents AND WPC No. 672 of 2024 Smt. Seeta Patel W/o Amrit Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Basti Saraipali, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology Department, Ministry, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.)
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Sector 24, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer Agriculture Sub-Division, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
----Respondents AND WPC No. 691 of 2024 Doman Markam S/o Shri Kehar Singh Markam Aged About 56 Years Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Pandariya, R/o Village- Chhirpani, Thana- Kukdur, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabeerdham, C.G.
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agricultural Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Cg
2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Divisional Office Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 8
3. Director Krishi Vipnan Board Raipur, Office Of Director, Krishi Vipnan Board, Sector- 24, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Bhawan, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.
4. Collector Kabeerdham, Distt.- Kabeerdham, C.G.
5. Shri Suresh Chandra Prasad Sr. Agriculture Development Officer, Pandariya, District- Kabeerdham, C.G.
----Respondents AND WPC No. 712 of 2024 Punnilal Patel S/o Safelal Patel Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Khairjhitikala, Post Hatranka, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Bio-Technology Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Mordhwaj Dadsena Deputy Director Agriculture Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)
----Respondents AND WPC No. 747 of 2024 Neelkanth Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramhau Sahu Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Village And Post - Khairbana Kalan, Block-Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology Department, Ministry, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.)
2. Director Agriculture Marketing, Office Of The Director, Agriculture Marketing Beej Bhawan, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Rakesh Sharma Deputy Director, (Agriculture), District Kabirdham (C.G.),presently Discharging Functions Of Officer-In-Charge Krishi Upaj Mandi Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
4. Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing (Mandi) Board Through Its Managing Director Having Its Office At Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Sector 24, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 9
5. District Collector And District Election Officer District Rajnandgaon Office Of The Collector, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
----Respondents AND WPC No. 776 of 2024 Sandeep Shukla S/o Shriniwas Shukla Aged About 44 Years R/o Krishan Nagar, Post Belgahna, Tehsil Kota, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology Department, Ministry, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, C.G.
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Sector 24, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G.
3. Senior Agricultural Development Officer Divisional Office, Bilaspur, C.G.
----Respondents AND WPC No. 1025 of 2024 Smt. Shanta Verma W/o Shri Punaram Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Tulsi, District Raipur, C.G. Chairman Of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Nevra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur C.G.
2. Managing Director C.G. Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Divisional Office Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Director Krishi Vipnan Board Raipur, Office Of Director, Krishi Vipnan Board, Sector-24, Saradar Vallabhai Patel Bhawan, Nayabandha, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Collector District Raipur (C.G.)
5. Shri K.N. Rustogi Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Nevra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents AND Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 10 WPC No. 1029 of 2024
1. Neelam Chandrakar S/o Late Babu Lal Chandrakar Aged About 46 Years R/o Near Ram Mandir, Bhoipara, Kurud, Tahsil -Kurud, Distt -
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Chairman, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.)
2. Pramod Sahu S/o Jeevan Lal Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o College Road, Sanjay Nagar, Kurud, Tahsil - Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Vice Chairman - Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.)
3. Bisauha Sahu S/o Late Ledge Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Kuliyari, Post - Bhakhara, Tehsil - Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.)
4. Komal Sinha S/o Chatur Ram Sinha Aged About 60 Years R/o Village And Post - Bhendari, Tahsil - Magarload, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.)
5. Smt. Vishakha Sahu W/o Chandrahas Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Surya Namaskar Chowk, Kurud, Tahsil - Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.)
6. Smt. Veena Kosre W/o Late Mukesh Kosre Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Kosamarra, Tahsil - Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.)
7. Hintendra Kela S/o Shankar Lal Kela Aged About 46 Years R/o Bhoipara Kurud, Tahsil - Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.)
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Biotechnology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Distt - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Director Chhattisgarh Agricultural Marketing Board, Sector -24, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Kayabandha, Nava Raipur, Distt - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Collector District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
4. Agricultural Produce Market Committee Kurud, Through Its Secretary, Kurud, Tahsil - Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
5. Champuram Sahu Sr. Agricultural Development Officer, Kurud, Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 11
----Respondents For the Respective Petitioners : Shri S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Shri Siddharth Dubey, Shri Sunil Sahu, Shri Rajnish Bhaghel, Shri Ritesh Verma, Shri Manharan Lal Sahu and Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondent/State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent/Chhattisgarh : Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur State Agriculture Marketing Board Shri Amrito Das and Shri Vibhor Govardhan, Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey CAV ORDER
1) As common questions of law and facts are involved in this batch of Writ Petitions, they were clubbed together; heard together and decided by this common order.
2) The petitioners, who are Chairman and Members of various Market Committees of respective Krishi Upaj Mandis, have challenged the orders of their removal from Office issued on different dates including 15.12.2023. In all Krishi Upaj Mandis, the Market Committees were constituted according to the provisions of Section 11 of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1972').
3) The facts of the present case are that the petitioners are the members of the respective Krishi Upaj Mandis. In the year 2006, the elections of the Market Committees of Krishi Upaj Mandis were held. The elected members enjoyed their office for a period of five years. According to provisions of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the tenure of the Committee is five years. The elections were held in the year 2006 and as per the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 12 Members were elected. After completion of 5 years, the Market Committees were dissolved according to provisions of Section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. The State Government appointed Officers- In-Charge in all Market Committees. The Officers-In-Charge continued to perform their functions till 2022. In the year 2022, the competent authority decided to appoint In-charge Committees in place of Officers-In-Charge at various Market Committees of Krishi Upaj Mandis. As per the information given by the learned counsel for the parties, there are a total of 127 Krishi Upaj Mandis out of which 50-60 Krishi Upaj Mandis have In-charge Market Committees. According to provisions of Section 57(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1972, a decision has been taken by the authority to remove all office-bearers of In-charge Committees and to appoint Officers-In-Charge. The respective orders so passed have been challenged in all these petitions.
4) Shri S.C. Verma, the learned Senior Counsel leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the power conferred under Section 57(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 can be exercised after dissolution of the Market Committee. He would further submit that the Market Committees so constituted by the respondent authorities were not dissolved, therefore, the power conferred under Section 57(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 cannot be exercised. He would also submit that there is no provision regarding the removal of the officer bearers of Market Committees, therefore, the orders issued by the respondent authorities are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972. He would contend that as per the provisions of Section 82(A) of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the State Government ought to have framed rules within a period of three years from the date of Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 13 amendment in the Act to remove difficulties. He would further contend that when no steps were taken by the State Government to frame any law regarding the removal of members of market committees within a period of three years, the petitioners cannot be removed before the expiry of five years as laid down under Section 13(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1972. Learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the last elections were held in the year 2006 in all Krishi Upaj Mandis and the Market Committees were dissolved in the year 2011 after completion of five years. The In-charge Officers were appointed by the respondent authorities against Market Committees in all Krishi Upaj Mandis, who discharged their functions till the appointment of the new Market Committees; however, no steps were taken by them to conduct elections. He would argue that the petitioners were appointed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 and the Market Committees so constituted in the year 2022 have not been dissolved as per the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1972, therefore, the order of removal cannot be passed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 57 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. It is also argued that the petitioners cannot be removed in the absence of any legislation in this regard.
5) In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav vs. State of Telangana and Others reported in AIR 2016 SC 4982, Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in AIR 1991 SC 537, and the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Mangilal Shiv Lal Patidar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors reported in MANU/MP/0217/1994 and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 14 the matter of Jiwanlal Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in MANU/MP/0038/1981. Reliance is also placed on the order passed by this Court in the matter of Smt. Padma Chandrakar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, Writ Petition (C) No. 408 of 2019 affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 375 of 2019 by the Hon'ble Division Bench and the matter of Ramji Bharti vs. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC No.1989 of 2019.
6) Learned Counsels appearing for the respective respondents would argue that the Market Committees constituted in the year 2022 are not the Committees in stricto sensu as provided under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. They would further argue that according to the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 after the expiry of five years, the term of the Market Committee comes to an end. They would also argue that if a new Market Committee is not constituted, the State Government may extend the term of the Market Committee for a period of six months twice and after the expiry of one year, it would be deemed that committees have been dissolved and in such an event the provisions of Section 57 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 would come into play. They would further submit that the elections were held in the year 2006 and after the completion of a tenure of five years in the year 2011, all the market committees were dissolved and thereafter, in the exercise of the power conferred under Section 57(1)(b)(i) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 the Officers-In-Charge were appointed by the authorities. They would also submit that the Officers-In-Charge discharged their functions till 2022. In the mid of the year 2022, the authority concerned constituted Market Committees consisting of not more than 7 members according to provisions of Section 57(1)(b)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1972. They Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 15 would contend that according to the proviso appended to Section 57 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the Director has the power to appoint an Officer-In-Charge in place of In-charge Committee and In- charge Committee in place of Officer-In-Charge and the Director has exercised the power given under the proviso to Section 57(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1972. They would further contend that as the Market Committees were not constituted according to the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 would not attract. It is also contended that the Market Committee of elected members can be dissolved in line with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 and after dissolution, the power given under Section 57 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 can be exercised. It is further argued that in the orders of nomination of the petitioners, no tenure was provided. They would submit that the petitioners were appointed without any election or competition. It is also submitted that except for the provisions of Section 57(1)(b)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1972, there is no other provision concerning the appointment by nomination and the power for removal is also prescribed in the same Section. It is further argued that when there is a specific provision for the removal of the Market Committees, there is no need for the State Government to frame rules in this regard as provided under Section 82(A) of the Adhiniyam, 1972. It is also argued that vide notification dated 01.06.2020, the amendment has been inserted under various provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 including Section 57 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. It is stated that Section 57 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 deals with the consequences of dissolution under Section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. Section 57(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 says that all powers Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 16 and duties of the Market Committee under this Act shall be exercised and performed subject to the control of the Managing Director. The Director may appoint an Officer-in-Charge or he may appoint a Committee consisting of not more than seven members and at any time, the Director may appoint an Officer-in-Charge in place of an In-charge Committee and In-charge Committee in place of Officer-in-Charge.
7) In support of their arguments, reliance is placed on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav vs. State of Telangana and Others reported in AIR 2016 SC 4982, Om Narayan Agarwal and others vs. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanapur and others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 242, and State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud and another [(2022 SCC OnLine SC 1884)]. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay in the matter of Ramhari Dagadu Shinde and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1215, the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the matter of Som Dutt and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 9456, and the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in H. Rajaiah and others v. State of Karnataka and another [(2000) 6 KARLJ 401].
8) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the documents present on record with utmost circumspection.
9) Some provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 would be relevant for the disposal of this batch of petitions. Section 2(i) defines the Market Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 17 Committee. The Market Committee is a committee constituted under Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 deals with the Constitution of the Market Committee, which reads as under:-
"11. Constitution of Market Committee― (1) A Market Committee shall consist of―
(a) the Chairman elected under Section 12.
(b) ten representative of agriculturists possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed chosen by direct election from the constituencies of a market area in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder :
Explanation―The expression "representatives of agriculturist" in this clause shall not include an agriculturists of the market area, if any of his/ her relatives e.g husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, son and daughter who are residing with and dependent on him/ her holds a trader's registration from any of the market committee in the State.
(c) one representative of traders possessing or manufacturing such qualifications as may be prescribed, elected by and from amongst the persons holding licence from the market committee for a period of two successive years as traders or owners or occupiers of processing factories under this Act :
Provided that in the case of Market Committee established for the first time under Section 10, the qualifying period of holding licence from such market committee shall be six months:
Provided also that any elected representative of trader shall become disqualified to hold such office if he is having more than two living off spiring, out of which one is born on 26th January, 2001 or thereafter:
Provided also that any elected representative of trader who is already having one living offspring and next delivery takes place on 26th January, 2001 or thereafter in which two or more children are born shall not be disqualified.
Provided also that no person shall be a voter of more than one Market Committee at a time :
Provided also that no person shall be a voter unless―
(i) he has completed the age of 18 years.
(ii) he has not a defaulter of the Market Committee.
Explanation : The expression "defaulter" shall include a person who has defaulted in the payment of Nirashirt Shulk recoverable by the Market Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Nirashriton Avam Nirdhan Vyaktiyon ki Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1970 (No. 12 of 1970):
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 18
(d) Such member of the State Legislative Assembly and House of the People in whose constituency at least fifty percent of population resides in rural areas that is outside the local limits of a Municipal Corporation. Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat:
Provided that in a constituency where more than one market committee exists the member shall have to give his option before the election, one of the Market Committees in which he wishes to become a member :
Provided further that the member of the State Legislative Assembly shall be a special invitee in all other market committee in his constituency;
(e) One representative of the co-operative Marketing Society functioning in the market area who shall be elected by the managing committee of such society :
Provided that if more than one such society functions in the market area, such member shall be elected by all the members of the managing committees of such societies :
Provided further that nothing in this clause shall apply if the managing committee of any society stands superseded under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (No. 17 of 1961):
(f) An Officer of the Agriculture Department of the State Government to be nominated by the Collector;
(g) One representative of the weighmen and hammals operating in the marketing area holding licence from the Market Committee to be nominated by the Chairman;
(h) One representative of the District Central Co-operative Bank who shall either be the Chairman of such Bank or such other member of the Managing Committee thereof, as may be nominated by the Chairman of such Bank;
(i) One representative of the District Land Development Bank who shall either be the Chairman of such Bank or such other member of the managing committee thereof, as may be nominated by the Chairman of such of Bank;
(j) One representative of the Gram Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat falls within the jurisdiction of the market area nominated by the Chairperson of the Zila Panchayat:
Provided that in market committee situated in the District headquarters the representative shall be nominated from amongst the members of the Zila Panchayat only.
(2) All members under sub-section (1) shall have a right to vote except the member nominated under clause (f) and the special invitees under the second proviso to clause (d) of sub-section (l).
(3) The State Government may make rules for the preparation of voter's list and conduct of elections.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 19 (4) If the electorate under clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (l) fails to elect a representative, the Collector shall nominee the representative of the agriculturists or traders, as the case may be. (5) Every election and nomination of a member shall be notified by the Collector in the official gazette."
10) Section 12 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 deals with the Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Section 12 is reproduced herein below for reference:-
"12. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.- (1) The Chairman shall be chosen by direct election by the persons qualified to vote for the election of representatives of the agriculturists and traders in the prescribed manner :
Provided that no person shall be eligible for election as Chairman unless he is qualified to be elected under sub- section (2) and (3) of section 11-B. (2) The offices of the Chairman shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the number of offices so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of such offices in the State as the population of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the States bears to the total population of the State and these offices shall be allotted, by the Managing Director to the Market Committees in the prescribed manner.
(3) Twenty five percent of the total number of offices of chairman shall be reserved for Other Backward Classes and such seats shall be allotted in the prescribed manner by the Director, to such Market Committees, which are not reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
(4) Not less than one third of the total number of offices of Chairman reserved under subsections (2) and (3) shall be reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, as the case may be.
(5) Not less than one third including the number of offices reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of the total number of offices of Chairman in the State shall be reserved for women and such offices shall be allotted by the Managing Director to different Market Committees in the prescribed Manner.
(6) No Person shall be eligible to contest election simultaneously for office of the Chairman and member.
(7) If any market area fails to elect a Chairman fresh election proceedings shall be initiated to fill the office within six Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 20 months:
Provided that further proceedings for constituting the market committee shall not be stayed pending the election of Chairman :
Provided further the pending the election of Chairman under this sub-section the Vice-Chairman shall discharge all the functions of the Chairman.
(8) There shall be a Vice-Chairman of the Market Committee who shall be elected by and from amongst the elected member thereof in the first meeting of the market Committee convened under sub-section (1) of Section 13 in the prescribed manner :
Provided that if the Chairman of the Market Committee does not belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes, the Vice Chairman shall be elected from amongst the elected members belonging to such castes, tribes or classes :
Provided further that if the Chairman of the market committee of the area of fifth Schedule to the Constitution, doesn't belong to Scheduled Tribes, the Vice-chairman shall be elected from amongst the elected members belonging to Scheduled Tribes:
Provided further that no person shall be eligible for election as Vice-Chairman unless he is an agriculturist.
(9) Every election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be notified in the official gazette by the Collector."
11) Section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 talks about the first meeting, terms of office, resignation by Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member and vacancy in their Office. It reads as under:-
"13. First meeting, terms or officer, resignation by Chairman, Vice - Chairman or Member and vacancy in their Office― (1) The first meeting of the Market Committee shall be convened by the Collector within one month from the date of publication of result of election of Chairman and members in the official gazette.
(2) The Chairman, Vice Chairman and members of the Market Committee shall hold office for a period of five years from the date of first meeting of the Market Committee :
Provided that if on the expiry of the term of the Market Committee, a new Market Committee is not constituted, the State Government may, by notification extend the term of the market committee for a period fo six months twice, that is for a maximum period of one year from the date of expiry, with reasons for such extension being paced on record and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 21 if the new market committee is not constituted within this extended term, it shall be deemed to have been dissolved and in such an event the provisions of Section 57 shall apply.
(3) The Chairman, Vice Chairman or a member may resign his office at any time in writing addressed to the Collector and such resignation shall be effective from the date of its acceptance by the Collector.
(4) Any person who is elected as a Chairperson or Vice-
Chairperson of a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat, Panchayat or Co-operative Society is elected as Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of the Market Committee or Vice Versa may, notice in writing signed by him and delivered to the prescribed authority withing thirty days from the date, or the latter of the dates, on which he is elected, intimate in which of the office he wishes to serve, and thereupon, his seat in the body in which he does not wish to serve shall become vacant and in default of such intimation within the aforesaid period, his seat in the Market Committee shall, as the expiration of that period become vacant.
(5) In the event of death, resignation or removal of the Chairman, Vice Chairman or a Member before the expiry of his term or on the occurrence of a vacancy under sub- section (4), or otherwise, a casual vacancy shall be deemed to have occurred in such office and such vacancy shall be filled within six months by election in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and a person so elected or nominated shall hold office for the unexpired portion of the term of his predecessor :
Provided that if the remaining term of the office is less than six month, such vacancy shall not be filled in.
(6) In the event of occurrence of any vacancy in the office of the Chairman by reason of his death, resignation or removal or otherwise the Vice Chairman and if the office of the Vice Chairman is also vacant then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, such member of the Market Committee who is elected under clause (b) of Sub-section (1), of Section 11, as the Collector may appoint shall exercise powers and perform the functions of the Chairman till the Chairman is dully elected."
12) Section 57 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 talks about the consequences of dissolution under Section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. It reads thus:-
"57. Consequences of dissolution under Section 13― (1)Where a Market Committee stands dissolved under proviso to sub- section (2) of Section 13, the following consequences shall ensue, namely ;--
(a) all the members as well as the Chairman and Vice-
Chairman of the Market Committee shall, as from the date Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 22 of dissolution of such Market Committee under the said sub-section, be deemed to have vacated their offices;
(b) all powers and duties of the Market Committee under this Act, shall be exercised and performed subject to the control of the director,―
(i) by a person to be called the Officer-in-Charge as the Director may, by order appoint in that behalf,
(ii) by a committee consisting of not more than seven persons to be called the in-charge committee as the Director may, by order appoint in that behalf:
Provided that the Director may at any time appoint an officer-in-charge in place of in-charge committee and in- charge committee in place of the officer-in-charge:
Provided further that in the event of death, resignation, leave or suspension of the Officer-in-Charge a casual vacancy shall be deemed to have occurred in such office and such vacancy shall be filled in as soon as may be, by appointment of a person thereto by the Managing Director and until such appointment is made a person nominated by the Collector shall act as Officer-in-Charge;
(c) All property vested in the Market Committee shall vest in the Officer-in-Charge in trust for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Any Officer-in-Charge or any person or all persons appointed to in-charge committee under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) may at any time be removed by the Director who shall have power to appoint another person or another person's as the case may be.
(3) Any person appointed Officer-in-Charge under sub-
section (1) shall receive from the Market Committee Fund for his services such Honorarium as may be fixed by the Government, and each member of the in-charge committee shall be entitled received allowances from the market committee fund at such rate as the allowances payable to the members of the Mandi Committee.
(4) The Officer-in-Charge or the in-charge committee shall cease to hold office on the date appointed for the first general meeting of the Market Committee as reconstituted."
13) Section 82(A) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 deals with the power to remove difficulty. It reads thus:-
"82-A. Power to remove difficulty― If any difficulty arises in implementation of any provisions of this Act, as amended by this Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, the State Government may, as exigency requires, by order not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty:
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 23 Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which this Sanshodhan Adhiniyam comes into force."
14) A bare reading of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 would make it amply clear that the Market Committee shall consist of a Chairman and representatives of agriculturists chosen by direct election from the constituencies of a market area, one representative of traders possessing knowledge, one representative of Cooperative Marketing Society, an officer of the Agriculture Department of the State Government, one representative of the weighmen and hammals operating in the marketing area, one representative of the District Central Cooperative Bank, one representative of the District Land Development Bank and one representative of Gram Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat. According to Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, members of the Market Committee are chosen by direct election and there may be 18 members. According to Section 12 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the Chairman would be chosen by direct election by the persons qualified to vote for the election of representatives. The Vice- Chairman of the Market Committee would be elected by and from amongst the elected members thereof in the first meeting. Section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 says that the first meeting of the Committee would be convened by the Collector within one month from the date of publication of the result of the election of Chairman and members in the official gazette. The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the Market Committee will hold office for a period of five years from the date of the first meeting. It is further provided that after the expiry of five years, the term of the committee may be extended by notification for six months twice and if after the expiry Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 24 of one year no election is held, the Committee would be dissolved and it will be deemed that the committee has been dissolved and in such event, the provisions of Section 57 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 would apply. According to provisions of Section 57 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 if the committee is dissolved under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 it would be deemed that all members including Chairman and Vice-Chairman have vacated their offices and all powers and duties of the committee would be exercised and performed by Director. The Director may appoint an Officer-in-Charge or he may constitute a Committee consisting of not more than seven persons which will be called the In-charge Committee. The power is given to the Director to appoint an Officer-in-Charge in place of an In-charge Committee and vice versa.
15) Section 82(A) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 deals with the power to remove difficulty. If any difficulty arises in the implementation of any provisions of the Act, 1972, the State Government may, as exigency requires, do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty. However, no order can be passed after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of amendment.
16) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav (supra). The relevant paras 31 and 32 are reproduced herein below:-
"31. Having so stated, it is to be scrutinized whether the base of earlier judgment has been removed. The High Court in its earlier judgment had struck down the amended provision on the foundation that there was discrimination between the existing appointees and future appointees to the office of members, Vice-Chairmen and Chairmen. The High Court had opined that the classification between the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 25 two categories was not reasonable and it caused discomfort to Article 14 of the Constitution. It had given emphasis on the statutory safeguards meant for removal. The legislature after the decision of the High Court has amended the provision. By such amendment, it has removed the distinction between the existing members and the members who are to come in future. It has substituted the word "appointed" by "nominated". It is worth noting that as per the earlier provision members were to be appointed by the Government in consultation with the Director of Marketing from among certain categories of growers of agricultural produce, owners of livestock and products of livestock in the notified area. The Chairmen and the Vice-Chairmen were appointed from amongst its members by the Government in consultation with the Director of Marketing. As has been stated earlier, the word "appointed" has been substituted as "nominated". Submission of Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is that by such an amendment the vested right of the appellants has been affected. It is noticeable that under the scheme of the Act, the word "appointed" as was used in the earlier provision was really not an appointment which can be equated to a post under the service jurisprudence. The members were meant to be members for the purpose of composition of market committee. What is urged is that the members, the Chairmen and the Vice-Chairmen had a fixed term, who could be removed after inquiry or under certain conditions. Our attention has been drawn to sub-section (5) of Section 6 but after the amendment the members had ceased to become members prior to expiry of their tenure, that is, three years. We may make it clear that the competent authority of the State Government still can remove member or Vice- Chairman or Chairman taking recourse to other provisions prior to expiry of the period. The grievance of the appellants is that the period is curtailed and the vested right is affected. The argument is that it could not have been done by retrospective amendment of the provision. The aforesaid argument suffers from a fallacy. The members were not elected. They were not appointed by any kind of selection. They were chosen by the State Government from certain categories. The status of the members have been changed by amending the word "appointed" by substituting it with the word "nominated". Thus, the legislature has retrospectively changed the meaning. In our considered opinion, by virtue of the amendment, the term which has been reduced for a nominated member stands on a different footing. In Om Narain Agarwal and others v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur and others it has been held that if an appointment has been made initially by nomination, there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the legislature authorised the State Government to terminate such appointment at its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place. It is because the nominated members do not have the will or authority of any residents of the Municipal Board behind them as may be present in the case of an elected member. The Court further observed that such provision neither offends any Article of the Constitution nor the same is against any public policy or democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 26
32. The word "appointment" has been substituted by "nomination". It is an appointment by nomination. It is from certain categories for the purpose of representation. It is not appointment as the word ordinarily connotes. The legislature, in its wisdom, has substituted the word "appointment" and made it "nomination with retrospective effect". To enable it to curtail or reduce the term, the procedure for removal remains intact. A nominee can go from office by efflux of time when the period is over. That is different than when he is removed. A nominated member, in praesenti, can also be removed by adopting the procedure during the period. Otherwise, he shall continue till his term is over; and the term is one year. The plea of vested right is like building a castle in Spain. It has no legs to stand upon and, therefore, we unhesitatingly repel the said submission."
17) In the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra) in paras 17, 18 & 43 it was observed thus:-
"17. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument of the learned Additional Advocate-General that the appointment of District Government Counsel by the State Government is only a professional engagement like that between a private client and his lawyer, or that it is purely contractual with no public element attaching to it, which may be terminated at any time at the sweet will of the Government excluding judicial review. We have already indicated the presence of public element attached to the `office' or `post' of District Government Counsel of every category covered by the impugned circular. This is sufficient to attract Article 14 of the Constitution and bring the question of validity of the impugned circular within the scope of judicial review.
18. The scope of judicial review permissible in the present case, does not require any elaborate consideration since even the minimum permitted scope of judicial review on the ground of arbitrariness or unreasonableness or irrationality, once Article 14 is attracted, is sufficient to invalidate the impugned circular as indicated later. We need not, therefore, deal at length with the scope of judicial review permissible in such cases since several nuances of that ticklish question do not arise for consideration in the present case.
43. Non-application of mind to individual cases before issuing a general circular terminating all such appointments throughout the State of U.P. is itself eloquent of the arbitrariness writ large on the face of the circular. It is obvious that issuance of the impugned circular was not governed by any rule but by the whim or fancy of someone totally unaware of the requirements of rule of law, neatly spelled out in the case of John Wilkes, [1770] 4 Burr 2528 more than two centuries back and quoted with approval by this Court almost a quarter century earlier in Jaisinghani's case (AIR 1967 SC 1427) (supra). We have considered it necessary to re-
emphasize this aspect and reiterate what has been said so often by this Court only because we find that some persons entrusted with the task of governance appear to be unaware of the fact that the exercise of discretion they have must be Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 27 governed by rule, not by humour, whim, caprice or fancy or personal predilections. It also disturbs us to find that the Legal Remembrancer's Department of the State of U.P. which has the duty to correctly advise the State Government in such matters, overlooked the obvious and failed to discharge its bounden duty of correctly advising the State Government in matters of law. We would like to believe that the impugned circular was issued for want of proper legal advice in this behalf instead of any ulterior motive suggested by the petitioners/appellants."
18) In the matter of Mangilal Shiv Lal Patidar (supra), the validity of the amendment made to Sections 10, 56 and 57 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 was under challenge. It was held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh therein that the Stale Legislature was competent to make amendments to the provisions, the right to be elected to the committee is a statutory right conferred by the Act, and the right to be nominated accrues only because of the provisions existing before the amendment. This right is nothing but a statutory right which can be taken away by statute. Thus, it is a right which can be acquired or lost depending on the nature of the provisions in the Act. The functions and duties performed under the Act by committees can be performed by any person appointed as an officer with the help of the staff of the Mandi Committee. It does not require any serious deliberation or consultation process. The petition was dismissed with the observations that the amendments made to Sections 10, 56 and 57 by Ordinance No. 1 of 1994 as replaced by Act No. 8 of 1994 do not suffer from any arbitrariness and are intra vires of the Constitution. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the above-referred matter has no application.
19) In the matter of Jiwanlal Agrawal (supra), the Block Development Officer was appointed as Administrator of the newly formed Municipalities after the expiry of the tenure and the same was Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 28 challenged. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that it was open to the Government to appoint an Administrator even in case of a committee under Section 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 after the expiry of its term in the same manner as it can do in case of an elected council under Section 36 (2) of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. It is further held that the power to extend the term under the proviso to Section 16(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 is discretionary and the Government cannot be compelled to exercise it and the petition was dismissed. The facts of the case relied on are entirely different from the facts of the case at hand.
20) In the matter of Smt. Padma Chandrakar (supra), the order of the learned Single Bench was affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.375 of 2019 and the order of removal of members of the State Women Commission by the State Government was set aside. It was a case where the members of the Commission were in the capacity of Social Worker and eminent Advocate, and they were appointed according to the provisions of Section 3 of the Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1995'). In the Act, 1995, Section 4 deals with the term of office and conditions of the Chairperson and Members, such appointed members can be removed according to Sub- Section 3 of Section 4 of the Act, 1995, therefore, the order of removal was set aside by the Writ Court and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench. The relevant para 14 of the order passed by the Writ Court is reproduced below:-
"14. When the Act governs the appointment and removal under specific legislation then in such case the removal has to be according to the Act itself. The doctrine of pleasure can be given an over riding effect to the statute governing the field. The State is bound to follow its own Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 29 law and if the Act provides certain things to be done in a particular way, the same is to be done accordingly. Consequently the Annexure P-1 with reference to the petitioners can not be allowed to be sustained. As a result, the same is quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to hold the office under Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1995 and further shall be entitled to all the consequential reliefs from their date of stoppage."
21) In the matter of Ramji Bharti (supra), a similar proposition of law has been enunciated by the Coordinate Bench.
22) Now coming to the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents.
23) In the matter of Om Narain Agarwal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where nominations/appointments are made on political considerations, even the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with nor the removal under the pleasure doctrine puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members and observed thus:-
"In our view, such provision neither offends any Article of the Constitution nor the same is against any public policy or democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution. There is also no question of any violation of principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity to the nominated members before their removal nor the removal under the pleasure doctrine contained in the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members. It is done purely on political considerations. In Dr. Rama Mishra's case, the High Court wrongly held that the pleasure doctrine incorporated under the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act was violative of the fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Article 14 and Article 15 (3) of the Constitution. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the High Court. Clause (3) of Article 15 is itself an exception to Article 14 and clauses (1) and (2) of Article 15 of the Constitution. Under Article 14, a duty is enjoined on the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 15 (1) provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15 (2) provides that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them .be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 30
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainments; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
Thereafter Article 15 (3) provides that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. This means that in case any special provision is made for women, the same would not be violative on the ground of sex which is prohibited under clauses (1) and (2) of Article 15 of the Constitution. Thus, the special provision contained for nominating one or two women members as the case may be provided in Section 9 of the Act would be protected from challenge under clause (3) of Article 15 of the Constitution. It may also be worthwhile to note that the provision of pleasure doctrine incorporated by adding proviso four does not, in any manner, take away the right of representation of women members in the Board, but it only permits the State Government to keep the nominated women members of its own choice. The High Court in Dr. Rama Mishra's case took a wrong view in holding that the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act was violative of Article 15 (3) of the Constitution under an erroneous impression that this provision in any manner curtailed the representation of women members in the Board. We are not impressed with the reasoning given by the High Court that the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act in any manner deprived the fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It is well established that the right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution applies to equals and not to enequals. The nominated members of the Board fall in a different class and cannot claim equality with the elected members. We are also not impressed with the argument that there would be a constant fear of removal at the will of the State Government and is bound to demoralise the nominated members in the discharge of their duties as a member in the Board. We do not find any justification for drawing such an inference, inasmuch as, such contingency usually arises only with the change of ruling party in the Government. Even in the case of highest functionaries in the Government like the Governors, the Ministers, the Attorney General and the Advocate General discharge their duties efficiently, though removable at the pleasure of the competent authority under the law, and it cannot be said that they are bound to demoralise or remain under a constant fear of removal and as such do not discharge their functions in a proper manner during the period they remain in the office. Thus, in the circumstances mentioned above, we are clearly of the view that the decision in Dr. Rama Mishra's case does not lay down the correct law and is overruled and the view taken by the High Court in Prem Kumar Balmiki's case (supra) is held to be correct. We do not consider it necessary to dwell upon other arguments made before us or made and dealt with by the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 31 High Court, as the above appeals can be disposed of on the point already dealt and decided by us. Thus, as a result of the view taken by us, we hold that Smt. Shyama Devi and Smt. Baijanti Devi, the two women. members had been rightly nominated in place of Smt. Abida and Smt. Hazra Khatoon and were entitled to take part in the meeting held on 12.8.1991 for considering the motion of no- confidence against Mohd. Iqbal, the President of Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur. Further, the motion of no- confidence being supported by 20 members which admittedly constituted a majority of the total strength of the members of the Board being 37, the no-confidence motion has been rightly carried out and as a result of which Mohd. Iqbal was not entitled to continue as President of the Board. Similarly, Smt. Abida and Smt. Hazra Khatoon having been rightly removed as nominated members, they are no longer entitled to continue as nominated members of the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur and in their place Smt. Shyama Devi and Smt. Baijanti Devi shall be entitled to continue as nominated members of the Board."
24) In the matter of Om Narain Agarwal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of removal of nominated women members observed that there is no question of any violation of principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity to the nominated members before their removal nor the removal puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members. It is done purely on political considerations. It was further observed that it is well established that the right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution applies to equals and not to unequals. The nominated members of the Board fall into a different class and cannot claim equality with the elected members.
25) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shaikh Mahemud (supra), while dealing with the removal of a member of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs held that when there is a provision for appointment only and not for removal, the power to appoint would include the power of cancellation of appointment, and held in paras 14 & 15 as under:-
"14. It was contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the notification of cancellation of Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 32 appointment was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (9) read with clause (c) of sub- section (1) of Section 14. Since these provisions deals only with appointment and not with removal, it was contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the notification of cancellation was not in accordance with law.
15. But the above contention loses sight of the fact that the power to appoint would include the power of cancellation of appointment. Therefore, the said contention is liable to be rejected."
26) The High Court of Karnataka in the matter of H. Rajaiah (supra) while dealing with a similar issue observed that the nominations are made without following any transparent or objective process of selection of those vying for such nominations. They hold good during the pleasure of the Government and are therefore tenuous lacking certainty or security of tenure. The intensity of review of any decision relating to the making or unmaking of a nomination has thus to be low and broadly speaking limited to finding out whether the impugned decision is vitiated by bad faith, manifest absurdity or improper motive. It was held in paras 9, 14 & 15 as under:-
"9. The Doctrine of Pleasure is, as seen above, neither a relic of a feudal age nor a special prerogative of the Crown. It has found acceptability even in modern Democratic set ups on the ground of public good. In India, it has received recognition by incorporation in the provisions of Articles 76(4), 156(1), 165(3) and 311 of the Constitution. It thus remains a dynamic concept that transcends the vicissitudes of time and the changes that have come about since its birth. The doctrine and the amplitude of the power available under the same is not therefore ipso facto arbitrary, irrational or violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Court.
14. In Om Narain Agarwal and Others v Nagar Palika, Shahjahan-pur and Others, the nominations made to the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur were revoked. The order when challenged was quashed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. In an appeal before the Supreme Court, their Lordships held that a removal under 'Pleasure Doctrine' did not cast any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members and that such orders were passed purely on political considerations. The following passage from the decision is noteworthy.- Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 33 "There is also no question of any violation of principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity to the nominated members before their removal nor the removal under the pleasure doctrine contained in the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members. It is done purely on political considerations".
XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX
"Even in the case of highest functionary in the Government like the Governors, the Ministers, the Attorney General and the Advocate General discharge their duties efficiently, though removal at the pleasure of the competent authority under the law, and it cannot be said that they are bound to demoralise or remain under a constant fear of removal and as such do not discharge their functions in a proper manner during the period they remain in the office".
(emphasis supplied)
15. Such then is the nature of the nominations. They are made without following any transparent or objective process of selection of those vying for such nominations. They hold good during the pleasure of the Government and are therefore tenuous lacking certainty or security of tenure. The intensity of review of any decision relating to the making or unmaking of a nomination has thus to be low and broadly speaking limited to finding out whether the impugned decision is vitiated by bad faith, manifest absurdity or improper motive.
27) In the matter of Ramhari Dagadu Shinde (supra), the appointment of the petitioners as Members/Chairman of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was cancelled. The petitioners were non-official members. The order of cancellation was challenged on the ground that their appointment was for tenure of three years which had not expired; no reason was assigned and there was nothing against the petitioners and the doctrine of pleasure cannot be a license to act with arbitrarily or whimsically or with unfettered discretion. The relevant paras 12, 13 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 34 & 20 are reproduced herein below:-
"12. It is common ground that the Commission is neither statutory nor mandated by any provision of the Constitution. Neither the constitution of the Commission nor the appointment of the Petitioners has any statutory basis. The Petitioners were nominated at the sole discretion of the government without following any selection procedure or inviting applications from the general public. Such an appointment has to be treated as one under the pleasure of the government and not in the nature of any employment or appointment under Part XIV of the Constitution.
13. The contention of the Petitioners that the tenure of three years has not expired cannot be sustained. There is nothing in the GO appointing them on their posts to indicate that the tenure of three years was a 'minimum tenure'. It is distinct from the meaning of 'tenure' ordinarily prescribed in statutory appointments. Nomination of the Petitioners to their posts without following any competitive process and in pure discretion and subjective satisfaction of the earlier government does not create nor vests any right or entitlement in the Petitioners to continue on their posts. In fact, the existence of the Commission itself is at the pleasure of the Government. The very inception of the Commission is by an executive order and can thus also be dismantled by an executive order. The nomination of the Petitioners to the posts in question was also by an executive order of the Government; it, too, can be cancelled by an executive order of the Government. For this reason, the Petitioners have no fundamental or legal right to the posts. Consequently, there is no requirement of any justification or of giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners for their removal.
20. Thus, considering the facts in the present case and in view of the legal position that the Commission has no statutory nor constitutional recognition, we have no hesitation in holding that the order cancelling the appointments of the Petitioners to the posts of Chairman/ Members of the Commission respectively cannot be said to be illegal, unlawful or otherwise vulnerable. No fundamental right to continue on the said posts is vested in the Petitioners. The GO dated 2 nd December 2022 cancelling their appointment cannot be held arbitrary or discriminatory."
28) The order passed in the matter of Ramhari Dagadu Shinde (supra), was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 17749 of 2023 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2023.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 35
29) In the matter of Ram Lok & Ors. vs. State of H.P. and Anr., AIROnline 2023 HP 564, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh while dealing with the issue of the doctrine of pleasure observed that "In exercise of the doctrine of pleasure, the principles of natural justice have no application." In paras 23, 24 and 27 it was held as under:-
"23. The "Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under the common law. A public servant could be dismissed from service by the Crown at its pleasure. However, the doctrine lost the said trait when it was applied in India, which is a republic, wedded to the rule of law functioning under a written Constitution. The authoritarian doctrine, though couched in an unfettered manner, is but subject to the rule of law. While considering the justiciability on the exercise of the power of Doctrine of Pleasure, there is no adjudication of any lis. The contours of judicial review is confined to finding out if the exercise of the power was "arbitrary, capricious or malafide". There is no requirement of any notice preceding exercise of the power or to assign any cause for exercise of the power. Though there is no need to assign reasons, the need for a valid and compelling reason, exists. In exercise of the doctrine of pleasure, the principles of natural justice have no application.
24. The ratio of the above decisions will apply with greater force in the present case, where the appointment/ nomination has no statutory basis whatsoever.
27. We have gone through the aforesaid judgment and find that therein though the doctrine of pleasure was discussed, but the same was only in the context of office of Governor(s), who hold a constitutional post, whereas it was unequivocally held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in exercise of power of doctrine of pleasure, principles of natural justice have no application."
30) In the matter of Som Dutt and Ors. (supra), wherein the tenure of the Haryana Backward Classes Commission was cancelled and the notification issued in this regard was challenged, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that the power of appointment includes the power of removal, the petitioners had been nominated at the sole discretion of the Government without following any selection procedure or inviting applications from the general public. Such an appointment is not in the nature of an employment or Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 36 appointment under Part XIV of the Constitution. It has to be treated as one under the pleasure of the Government and conferring no legal or fundamental right on the petitioners. The relevant paras 17, 18, 26 & 27 read as under:-
"17. The Commission to which the petitioners were appointed was constituted by notification issued in exercise of executive power of the State. The Commission has been dissolved in the same manner resulting in the petitioners ceasing to be members. Neither the constitution of the Commission nor the appointment of the petitioners had any statutory basis. In the absence thereof, the petitioners had no legal right to continue as members. It is well settled that the power of appointment includes the power of removal. The petitioners had been nominated at the sole discretion of the Government without following any selection procedure or inviting applications from the general public. Such an appointment is not in the nature of an employment or appointment under Part XIV of the Constitution. It has to be treated as one under the pleasure of the Government and conferring no legal or fundamental right on the petitioners. Thus, we find no illegality in the notification Annexure P-6 dissolving the Commission and the consequential cessation of membership of the petitioners.
18. Similar questions have been considered by different High Courts and it has been held that appointments to high public offices like Chairperson/ Members of Boards/Commissions which are not made by following any competitive selection process, but in the pure discretion and subjective satisfaction of the government and for which no `minimum tenure'' as distinct from a `tenure'' is prescribed, are at the pleasure of the government and can be terminated at any time in exercise of the doctrine of pleasure without any cause shown. In such situation the exercise of the doctrine of pleasure is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional not antithetical to Article 14.
26. Firstly, opining about the nature of their appointments it was observed that the petitioners were not the employees of the Government or of the respective Boards or Corporations, but were holders of high public offices and were appointed by nomination. No specific educational qualifications were prescribed nor was there any age of superannuation.
27. It then referred to a decision of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Om Narain Agarwal v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur, AIR 1993 SC 1440. In that case the Apex Court was dealing with Section 9 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, which provided for nomination of a person as member of the Municipal Board by the State Government. The fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act provided that a member nominated under Section 9 shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government, Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 37 but not beyond the term of the Board. Two nominated members, challenged the cancellation of their nomination before the expiry of their term. The Hon''ble Supreme Court negatived the challenge by observing as under:
"11. ... ... The right to seek an election or to be elected or nominated to a statutory body, depends and arises under a statute. The initial nomination of the two women members itself depended on the pleasure and subjective satisfaction of the State Government. If such appointments made initially by nomination are based on political considerations, there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the Legislature authorised the State Government to terminate such appointment at its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place. The nominated members do not have the will or authority of any residents of the Municipal Board behind them as may be present in the case of an elected member. In case of an elected member, the Legislature has provided the grounds in Section 40 of the Act under which the members could be removed. But so far as the nominated members are concerned, the Legislature in its wisdom has provided that they shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government, it has not been argued from the side of the respondents that the Legislature had no such power to legislate the fourth proviso. The attack is based on Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
12. In our view, such provision neither offends any Article of the Constitution nor the same is against any public policy or democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution. There is also no question of any violation of principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity to the nominated members before their removal nor the removal under the pleasure doctrine contained in the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members, it is done purely on political considerations.... .... ...
13. ... ... We are also not impressed with the argument that there would be a constant fear of removal at the will of the State Government and is bound to demoralize the nominated members in the discharge of their duties as a member in the Board. We do not find any justification for drawing such an inference, inasmuch as, such contingency usually arises only with the change of ruling party in the Government. Even in the case of highest functionaries in the Government like the Governors, the Ministers, the Attorney General and the Advocate General discharge their duties efficiently, though removable at the pleasure of the competent authority under the law, and it cannot be said that they are bound to be demoralized or remain under a constant fear of removal and as such do not discharge their functions in a proper manner during the period they remain in Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 38 the office."
31) In the case of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav (supra) which was the matter where the State Government substituted the word "appointed" with "nominated" in Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets (Amendment) Act, 2015. The amendment was challenged before the High Court and it was argued that the Chairmen and the Vice-Chairmen had a fixed term who could be removed after inquiry or under certain conditions and after amendment, the members had ceased to become members prior to the expiry of their tenure. It was also one of the grievances that the period is curtailed and the vested right is affected and the same could not have been done by retrospective amendment of the provision. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh found the classification between the two categories not reasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the term "appointed" used in the earlier provision was really not an appointment which can be equated to a post under the service jurisprudence. It is further held that the competent authority of the State Government still can remove a Member or Vice-Chairman or Chairman by taking recourse to other provisions prior to the expiry of the period. It is further observed that the members were not elected. They were not appointed by any kind of selection and they were chosen by the State Government from certain categories. It was also held that the plea of vested rights is like building a castle in Spain. It has no legs to stand upon and therefore the appeal was dismissed.
32) In the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra), the decision of the State Government of UP was challenged whereby the State Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 39 Government terminated the appointment of all the government counsels (civil, criminal, revenue) in all districts of the State of UP and directed for preparation of fresh panel. In that case, it was argued by the counsel for the State that the relationship of appointees to offices of government counsels was purely contractual depending on the terms of the contract whereas the case in hand is a case of appointment through nomination. Their appointment cannot be equated to a post under the service jurisprudence, the members were meant to be the members of the market committee. The members were not elected. They were not appointed by any kind of selection. They were chosen by the state government from certain kinds of categories. If any appointment has been made initially by nomination there can be no violation of provisions of the Constitution. Thus the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the case of Kumari Srilekha Vidyarthi (supra).
33) In the matter of Smt. Padma Chandrakar (supra), the members were appointed according to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1995, and they could have been removed strictly in accordance with Section 4 of the Act, 1995 and not otherwise. It was also observed therein that the State is bound to follow its own law and if the Act provides certain things to be done in a particular way, the same is to be done accordingly, therefore, the order of removal was set aside and the same was also affirmed by the Division Bench. The law laid down in the above case is distinguishable on facts as well as law.
34) On the anvil of the above interpretation, relevant provisions of law governing the field and various authoritative pronouncements laid Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 40 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, the findings with regard to present matters can be summed up as under:-
(i) The petitioners were not selected pursuant to any process;
(ii) The petitioners are not elected members;
(iii) In the statute there is no specific provision regarding the removal of the petitioners;
(iv) No specific tenure is provided in their appointment orders;
(v) Though the petitioners were nominated by authorities, they cannot be permitted to continue for an indefinite period;
(vi) The petitioners did not take any steps to conduct the election;
(vii) The doctrine of pleasure would not come into play in the absence of statutory right in favour of the petitioners;
(viii) There is no question of violation of principles of natural justice as orders of removal have been passed within four corners of the statute and the same are not stigmatic;
(ix) The appointment of the petitioners cannot be equated to a post under the service jurisprudence therefore the doctrine of pleasure would not attract;
(x) The authority who appointed the petitioners has equal power to remove them;
(xi) It is well established that the right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution applies to equals and not to unequals. The petitioners fall into a different class and cannot claim equality with the elected members;
(xii) No fundamental right to continue on the said posts is vested in the Petitioners;
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:8141 41
(xiii) The petitioners were nominated; such an appointment is not in the nature of an employment/appointment under Part XIV of the Constitution of India;
(xiv) The nomination/appointment of the petitioners confers no legal or fundamental right in favour of the petitioners;
(xv) The nomination/appointment of the petitioners was pure discretion and subjective satisfaction of the government and for which no 'minimum tenure' as distinct from a 'tenure' was prescribed;
(xvi) The petitioners were at the pleasure of the government and can be terminated at any time in the exercise of the doctrine of pleasure without any cause shown. In such a situation, the exercise of the doctrine of pleasure is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional nor antithetical to Article 14.
35) In view of the above, it is held that the authorities have not committed any error of law in passing the orders of removal against the petitioners. Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
36) The issue of alternative remedy is left open as the same has not been contested by either party. It is expected that the State shall endeavour to hold elections to the Committees as early as possible in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi