1. This writ appeal and the writ petition, in view of the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Honourable Chief Justice, were heard together and since the questions / issues involved and raised are similar, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. The appellant and the petitioner in both these matters is one Khusro Quraishi, hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner'.

3. The appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd November, 2010, passed in Writ Petition No.26273/2010 (GM-RES), whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petition (w. p. No.26273/2010) was filed by the petitioner apprehending his removal as a Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission (for short ‘the Commission'). In the petition, the petitioner had prayed for declaration that section 4(1) of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act’), to the extent that it incorporates the expression "subject to the pleasure of the Government" is void and unconstitutional and be deleted from the section. Petitioner also prayed for an order against the respondents restraining them from taking any steps to interfere with continuance of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission till completion of his tenure.

4. Insofar as the first prayer in the writ petition No.26273/2010 is concerned, it was not considered by the learned single Judge in view of the Judgment of this Court in SYED MUDIR AGHA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA. & ORS. -ILR 2008 (2) KAR. 1722wherein a validity of the impugned expression in section 4 (1) of the Act was upheld. In this appeal, Mr. Jayaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that he is not pressing the appeal insofar as the first prayer is concerned. It appears, even the second prayer was not considered and granted by the learned single Judge since the petition was filed in anticipation of removal. In other words, the learned single Judge, in the writ petition, held that the second prayer was premature and it need not be considered at that stage. While disposing of the writ petition as premature, the learned Judge, after considering the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SHIMNIT UTSCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS versus WEST BENGAL TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS (2010)6 SCC 330,in the concluding paragraph observed that the State Government should follow the conclusions of the Apex Court in the aforementioned Judgment strictly while removing a person from the office who is holding the post during the pleasure of the Government. It was further observed whether such removal would be arbitrary, malafide, capricious or whimsical could be looked into only after the order of removal is passed and not prior to it.

5. After dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 22.11.2010, impugned in the present appeal, the State Government on 25.11.2010 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission and appointed respondent no.4 Sri. Anwar Manippady, in his place. In view thereof, the petitioner filed W.P. No.38946/2010 and prayed for declaration that the order dated 25.11.2010 is ultra vires the powers of the Government under the provisions of the Act being arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to the principles of fairness and natural justice. Admittedly, no interim order was passed either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal and as a result thereof, respondent no.4 Sri. Anwar Manippady continued as a Chairman of the Commission and is holding the charge till this date.

6. The facts, sans unnecessary details, leading to these two matters are as follows: the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Commission vide order dated 25.2.2009 issued in the name of Governor of Karnataka under sub-section (2)(a) of section 3 and section 4 of the Act with immediate effect 'until further orders’. Along with the petitioner, six other persons were also nominated as members of the Commission. Thus, the Com