Judgment

S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants made two-fold grievances in this appeal. In order to appreciate those grievances it would be necessary to note a few relevant facts.

4. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (herein­after to be referred to as ‘the Act’) was adopted by the Legislative Assembly, State of Manipur inpursuance to Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India by its resolution No. 36 in its sitting held on 28.12.1987. As the Central Act was adopted and became applica­ble to the State of Manipur, the appellant No. 1 - State of Manipur under Section 4 of the Act became empowered to constitute State Pollu­tion Control Board (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Board’). In exercise of its powers under Section 4 of the Act, the appellant No. 1 - State Government by various notifications constituted/reconstituted the Board from time to time. What is relevant for the present purpose is the reconstitution of the Board by Government Notification dated 5.5.1995. Pursuant to the said notification, the Governor of Manipur reconstituted the Board as per Section 4 of the Act nominating various members including the Chairman who was the then Hon’ble Minis­ter (STE), Manipur. The said Chairman became entitled to hold his Office for three years from the date of his nomination as laid down by Section 5(1) of the Act. He of course could continue to hold Office as Chairman even after expiry of the period of three years till his successor entered upon his Office. The said Chairman resigned on 10.7.1996. Thereupon, the present respondent was appointed as Chairman of the Board to fill up the vacancy caused on the resignation of the erstwhile Chairman. The said order of nomination in favour of respond­ent was dated 16.10.1996. The said nomination was until further or­ders. It appears that thereafter the Board was reconstituted in exer­cise of the powers under Section 4 of the Act by the Governor of Manipur by notification dated 26.5.1997 and in that reconstituted Board the respondent was shown as Chairman and the reconstituted Board was to continue until further orders. Then followed another order of the Governor, Manipur dated 28.10.1997 which recited that in superces­sion of the previous order issued and pursuant to sub-section (9) of Section 5 and sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Manipur Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1991, respondent’s Office of Chairman was restricted for a period of three years from the date of his initial nomination i.e. from 16.10.1996 it was to continue up to 15.10.1999. We may also mention that in the meantime the Board was reconstituted by further notifica­tion dated 8.12.1997 under Section 4 of the Act wherein the respondent was shown as the Chairman and he was to continue until further orders. After the aforesaid order dated 28.10.1997 read with further notifica­tion dated 8.12.1997 respondent’s tenure as Chairman met with rough weather. Some allegations were made against him while functioning as Chairman invoking his disqualification alleging that he had abused his position as Member so as to render his continuance as the Chairman of the Board detrimental to the interest of the general public as provid­ed under Section 6(1)(g) of the Act.

5. It may be stated at this stage that the Chairman is also considered to be a Member of the Board as laid down by sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act which reads as follows:

"(2) A State Board shall consist of the following members, namely :-

(a) a chairman..........”

6. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the respondent and after considering his reply, the Governor of Manipur in exercise of the powers under Section 5(3) read with Section 6(1)(g) of the Act by order dated 19.10.1998 directed that the respond