Back
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Singareddy Nagamani – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Writ petitioners through their respective counsels filed the following Writ Petitions: W.P. No. 14849 of 2024, W.P. No. 14851 of 2024, W.P. No. 15125 of 2024, W.P. No. 15139 of 2024, for issuance of mandamus, to declare the G.O.Rt. No. 410 dated 28.06.2024 issued by the Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, who is arrayed as 1st respondent in the above said Writ Petitions questioning the consequential proceedings bearing No. AGC-05-11021/20/2024-1 dated 28.06.2024 issued by the Director of Agricultural Marketing, who is arrayed as 2nd respondent herein, in unilaterally removing the petitioners herein as Chairman of Agricultural Market Committee and appointing person-in-charge, without following the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter called “the Act 1996”) as violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioners under the Constitution of India, on the ground that the said impugned G.O. discloses that the provision of law which was given one time application with reference to the commencing date of Amendment Act No. 28 of 201
The doctrine of pleasure permits removal from office without adherence to principles of natural justice when the appointee does not hold a civil post.
The doctrine of pleasure permits removal from office without notice or reason, provided it is not arbitrary, and does not apply to those not holding civil posts under the Constitution.
The doctrine of pleasure allows for removal from office without notice or reason, provided it is not arbitrary, and does not apply to those holding civil posts under the Constitution.
"Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under common law - A public servant could be dismissed from service by Crown at its pleasure.
The doctrine of pleasure does not permit arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by the State, and such actions must comply with principles of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Doctrine of Pleasure cannot be invoked in an arbitrary manner, and valid reasons are required for the removal of an appointed member. The ....
The Governor's power to remove nominated Chairmen of Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas under Section 11(3) of the Act is not absolute and is subject to the procedure prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
