Pleasure appointments can be cancelled without notice and without the application of rules of natural justice. Judicial review is permissible only when the exercise of power is vitiated by legal infirmities such as malice.

( 1 ) BY the court. Writ petition nos. 41214-41215/2001 are filed by one Sri subhash s. Koujalagi and Sri ramesh l. Jorkiholi, sitting members of the legislative assembly challenging Annexure 'b', an order dated 24. 9. 2001.

( 2 ) WRIT petition No. 46213 / 2001 is again filed challenging the very same notification by Smt. Premlatha, an ex-member of zilla panchayat. Both the petitions are taken up together by this court.

( 3 ) THE first two petitioners are the sitting members as mentioned earlier and the 3rd petitioner is he former member of zilla panchayat. They say in the petition that they are respected citizens representing certain constituencies in belgaum district. They say in the petition that taking into consideration the social status and the services rendered by them, the government in exercise of its power under Section 29 (1) of the act nominated them to the district central co-operative bank ltd. , belgaum, in terms of Annexure 'a' on 15. 9. 2001. According to the petition averments, within 10 days, the state government cancelled the earlier nominations dated 15. 9. 2001 in terms of Annexure 'b'. Annexure 'b' is challenged by the petitioners in these petitions. Their essential attack is that this endorsement at Annexure 'b' suffers from arbitrariness. The very factum of withdrawal within 10 days according to the petitioner speaks arbitrary exercise of powers. They further say that Annexure 'b' is issued without any reasons and therefore the same is bad in law. They also say that Annexure 'b' in violation of wednusbury principles and doctrine of proportionality in terms of the judgment reported in 2001 (2) SCC 386, AIR 2000 SC 3689. Om Kumar V. Union of India.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel Sri n. Devadas and Sri shantesh gureddi contend that Annexure 'b' read in the light of the averments would show that ctj 2 it is a clear case of arbitrary exercise of powers. According to the counsels, this court has to interfere by way of judicial review on the touch stone of article 14 of the Constitution of india. They strongly Rely on a judgment of this court reported in ILR 1997 kar 817; 1997 AIHC 4146, Janab Shastry Khaja Hussain V. Karnataka Board of Wakfs. They also rely on the judgment of Om Kumar V. Union of India, reported in 2001 (2) SCC 386; AIR 2000 SC 3689.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing the counsel, the following order is passed : the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act of 1959 (for short 'the act') provides for nominations in terms of Section 29 on the committee of an assisted co-operative society. The said Section reads as under :"nominees of government on the committee of an assisted co-operative society : the state government may nominate not more than three persons as its representatives on the committee of any assisted society of whom one shall be a person belonging to the schedule castes or schedule tribes and one shall be a woman. "section 29 (3) earlier read that the persons nominated under sub- Section (1) shall hold office as members of the committee for such period as the state government may, by order specify. Section 29 (3) is now amended, in terms of Amendment Act 24/2000. The amended proviso of Section 29 (3) reads as under :'the person nominated as a member of a co-operative society under sub-section (1) shall hold office as such member during the pleasure of the government. "

( 6 ) THE substituted amendment is very clear that nomination in terms of Section 29 is at the pleasure of the government. It is a well settled principle of law that pleasure appointments always can be cancelled without notice to the nominees. There is no question of rules of natural Justice in these cases of pleasure appointments. This court in some what identical circumstances in a reported judgment in 1995 (6) KLJ 95 (sic) has considered this very question and has ruled in para 6 reading as under :"it has therefore to be held that the state government has the power to cancel the nomination of all members who were appointe