1. Removal of Chairman of State Pollution Control Board — Dispute over tenure duration following appointment to fill a casual vacancy under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. (Para 4 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1104
1999(8) Supreme 654
Supreme Court of India
(From Gauhati High Court)
S.B. Majmudar and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
State of Manipur & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Chandam Manihar Singh -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5561 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9003 of 1999)
Decided on 23-9-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ashok Kumar Singh and Ms. Sultana Sanawar, Advocates.
Under Section 5(6) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, a person nominated to fill a casual vacancy in the Board holds office only for the remainder of the term of the member they replaced, rather than a full three-year term from their nomination date.
Headnote:Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (as adopted by State of Manipur)-Section 5(6) r/w Section 4(2)-Chairman/Member of Board-Nomination in place of casual vacancy-Tenure of Chairman nominated to fill up vacancy-Successor nominee who fills up vacancy will have only unexpired period of office available in the light of initial appointment of original incumbent Chairman and not beyond that-Even if Board is reconstituted on occurrence of casual vacancy members/chairman of Board will have only unexpired tenure of original nomination. (Para 11)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court erred in deciding merits of removal and whether a nominee filling a casual vacancy is entitled to a full three-year term. (Para 7 , 9 )
3. A nominee filling a casual vacancy only holds office for the unexpired term of the original member, regardless of subsequent board reconstitutions. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. Under Section 5(6) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, a person filling a casual vacancy holds office only for the remainder of the predecessor's term. (Para 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court's direction regarding tenure set aside. (Para 11 )
6. What is the tenure of a member nominated to fill a casual vacancy in the State Pollution Control Board?
According to Section 5(6) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, a person nominated to fill a casual vacancy holds office only for the remainder of the term for which the member they replaced was to hold office. (Para 11 )
7. What circumstances create a casual vacancy under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act?
Casual vacancies arise from the removal of a member under Section 5(3), the resignation of a member under Section 5(4), or removal due to disqualification under Section 6(2). (Para 11 )
8. Does a member of the Board continue in office after the expiration of their term?
Yes, under the proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, a member shall continue to hold office notwithstanding the expiration of their term until their successor enters upon the office. (Para 10 , 11 )
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
