Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In the background of the aforesaid facts, submissions have been made by the counsels. The petitioner was represented by Mr Salim Inamdar, while respondent no. 1, as indicated above, was represented by Ms Avinash Ahlawat. Respondent no.2 was represented by Mr Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr Sumeet Pushkarna. At the outset, I may notice that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since respondent nos. 3 to 6 were supportive of the cause put forth by the petitioner, he wishes to drop them from the array of parties. Having regard to the said submission, it is ordered accordingly. Respondent nos. 3 to 6 are deleted from the array of parties.

12. Mr Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel on behalf of respondent no. 2, submitted that having regard to the conduct of the petitioner no relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be granted to the petitioner. In this behalf he referred me to the letter issued by the trustees representing the employees, which included the petitioner. This was a communication dated 27.02.2013 issued to the auditors of the respondent no. 2/trust. Mr Tripathi found fault with content of the letter, in particular, the tone and tenor of the last part of the said communication, wherein the said trustees, which included the petitioner, had indicated to the auditors that if they failed to perform their duty to ensure that the accounts reflected a true and fair picture, they would take up the matter with the CAG. In this connection, reference is also made to the response of the auditors dated 26.03.2013, which was addressed to the chairperson of the trust. 12.1 That apart, Mr Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel submitted that, since the appointment was erroneous, and the appointment to the trust was at the pleasure of GNCTD, the petitioner could be removed without more, as he had no vested right in continuing as a trustee. Mr Tripathi submitted that the only exception to the above proposition is, where an allegation of malafide is made. He submitted that, if such a situation arose, then perhaps the principles of natural justice would have had to be adhered to before removing the petitioner. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Bulaji Borata vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 695 and the judgment in the case of Ramesh Gajendra Jadhav vs Secretary late S.G.S.P. mandal, & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3502. The last judgment was cited to buttress the point that if an appointment is made, which was founded on a mistake, the mistake committed in that behalf would not create an indefeasible legal right in the appointee.

13. Ms Ahlawat, on the other hand, contended that the removal of the petitioner was not triggered on account of the communication dated 27.2.2013 addressed to the Chairperson of the trust qua the auditors, to which reference was made by Mr Parag Tripathi. Ms Ahlawat though submitted that the conduct could be looked into by the Court, while coming to the conclusion whether or not a petition under Article 226 ought to be entertained.

13.1 Ms Ahlawat, however, defended the impugned communication on the ground that, the petitioner had lost competence to discharge his duties as a trustee since he was a retired employee, who could not be a representative of the employees in terms of Rule 3(a). Ms Ahlawat seemed to indicate that, this situation arose on account of a complaint received by GNCTD from some pensioners that the trustees, who were representing the employees, were not representing the welfare of the retirees on account of vested financial and political interest. Ms Ahlawat submitted that this triggered a re-examination of the issue and a re-look at the relevant rules and, it is because of this, that the impugned communication had been issued for removal of the petitioner. Learned counsel in support of her submissions relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs Smt. Ram Sukhi Devi (2005) 9 SCC 733 and Secretary, UPSC & anr. vs S. Krishna Chaitanya dated 05.08.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6349/2011. These judgments were cited to contend that no interim order could be passed at an interim stage which would ordinarily have the effect of granting final relief. The last submission though ignored the fact that such a situation has arisen on account of respondent no. 1 not adhering to the time schedule fixed by the court.

18. I am also not persuaded, at this stage, in view of what is stated by me hereinabove, that the appointment of the petitioner was erroneous and, therefore, he had no right to continue as the trustee. The judgments cited by Mr Parag Tripathi are, therefore, distinguishable as the facts obtaining in the present case are not pari materia with those set out in the said judgments.

19. During the course of arguments, I had asked Ms Ahlawat as to whether the impugned decision had been notified, i.e., whether the Board of Trustees had been reconstituted pursuant to the said decision. Ms Ahlawat informed me that the decision had the approval of the Lt. Governor. She was, however, not able to place any notification before me which would show that pursuant to the impugned decision the Board of trustees has been reconstituted.