IMPORTANT POINT
Section 6 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 confers power on the State Government independent of the power of State Government under Section 10, to remove the Trustees appointed under Section 4(1)(e) at the pleasure of the Government even before the Trustee concerned completes a period of five years.

Headnote:Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936-Section 6 r/w Sections 4(1)(e) and 10-Trustee nominated by Government under Section 4(1)(e)-Removal of-Powers of Government-Doctrine of pleasure-Rights of trustee falling under clause (e) to Section 4(1) are right created under statute-No opportunity need be given before removal-No right can be claimed based on principles of natural justice-Removal of trustee under Section 6 is based on principles of doctrine of pleasure.
The field of Section 6 and Section 10 are separate. The removal spoken under Section 6 is removal without any stigma while the removal under Section 10 is removal with penal consequences attaching stigma. If submission for the appellant is accepted, viz. Section 6 empowers and Section 10 lays down condition and procedure to remove then removal of trustee could only be for penal consequences and not otherwise. If that be so, there could be no reason to enact Section 6 as Section 10 covers such cases. It is significant, the removal under Section 6 is confined only to such Trustees who are covered under Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 and who are also nominated by the State Government. Rights of Trustees falling under the aforesaid Clause (e) are rights created under a statute and hence that very creator can always limits or curtails such right. In such cases, if a Trustee is removed, he cannot project any grievance that no opportunity was given to him. If any right which is creature of statute, is limited or curtailed by that very statute, in the absence of any other right under that very statute or the Constitution of India, such Trustee cannot claim any right based on the principle of Natural Justice. The removal spoken here neither casts any stigma nor lead to any penal consequences. This clearly reveals doctrine of pleasure which is implicit in this section. In any statute expression of the will of the legislature may be explicit or it may be implicit. It is open for the courts, while interpreting any provision to spell or read with other provisions of the statute if so intended to read implicitly, in the absence of any explicit words that subserve the intent of the legislature. Section 6 refers to the trustee falling under Clause (e), sub-section (1) Section 7 refers to Trustees falling under Clauses (b) and (c) and sub-section (2) refers to Trustees falling under Clause (d) and sub-section (3) refers to Trustees falling in Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 and Section 10 refers to cases of removal of trustees by way of stigma, and Section 11 refers to the disability of such removed trustees. In view of this we have no hesitation to hold that removal of Trustee under Section 6 is based on the principle of doctrine of pleasure. Once doctrine of pleasure is applicable neither the principle of natural justice would step in nor any question of giving opportunity before removal would arise. It is significant when stigma is cast then sub-section (3) of Section 10 specially provides for giving an opportunity to such incumbent before passing an order of removal under Section 10, while there is no such corresponding sub-section under Section 6. Thus intent of legislature is very clear which reinforces the inference which we have drawn that doctrine of pleasure is implicit under Section 6. (Paras 8 to 11)

JUDGMENT

Misra, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal raises the following question:

"Whether Section 6 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) confers power on the State Government independent of the power of State Government under Section 10, to remove the Trustees appointed under Section 4(1)(e) at the pleasure of the Government even before the Trustee concerned completes a period of five years."

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court which dismissed the appellant s writ petition challenging the order dated 9.2.2000 passed by the State Government (respondent No.1), removing the appellant from the trust (respondent No. 2) created under the aforesaid Act. The Preamble of the Act suggests, the Act was brought on the statute book to provide for the improvement and expansion of the town of Nagpur. The second respondent-trust was created under Section 3 of the said Act. Section 4 provides that the trust shall consist of nine Trustees of which one shall be the Chairman. Out of nine such Trustees four persons are appointed including the Chairman by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 4 and out of the said four persons not less than two shall have to be non-officials residing within the limits of the area to which this Act applies. In the present case we are concerned with Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 to which the appellant belongs. Section 6 specifies about the term of the Chairman and the Trustees appointed under Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 4. It provides that term of the office under it of the Chairman and of any Trustee shall be five years and both the Chairman and such Trustee may be removed from the office by the State Government at any time before completion of such term. Section 10 provides for the removal of Trustees, a provision which would fall for consideration along with Section 6 of the Act. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy we are hereunder reproducing Sections 4(1 )(e), 4(2), 6 and 10:-

"Section 4(1 )(e): four persons appointed under sub-section (2) of whom not less than two shall be non-officials residing within the limits of the area to which this Act applies.

Section 4(2) : The Chairman and the four persons referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) shall be appointed by the State Government by notification.

Section 6 : The term of office of Chairman or of any Trustee appointed under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 shall be five years, provided that the Chairman or any Trustee may be removed from office by the State Government at any time before the completion of such term.

Section 10 : The State Government may remove from the Trust any Trustees other than an ex-officio Trustee who -

(a) refuses to act, or becomes incapable of acting as a Trustee, or absents himself without the permission of the trust for more than three consecutive months from the meeting of the Trust or of any Committee of which he is a member and is unable to explain such absence to the satisfaction of the Trust, or

(b) is an undischarged insolvent or has compounded with his creditors, or

(c) has been sentenced by a Criminal Court to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months or to transportation, or has been ordered to find security for good behaviour under the Code of Criminal Procedure, such sentence or order not having subsequently being reversed or remitted or the offender pardoned, or

(d) has acquired or continued to hold without the permission in writing of the State Government directly or indirectly or by a partner, any share or interest in any contract or employment with, by or on behalf to the Trust or the Municipal Committee, or

(e) has acted as a trustee in a matter other than a matter referred to in clause (iv) or clause (v) of the proviso to this sub-section in which he had either directly or indirectly, a per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 129

Cases Referred (1)