Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—In these batches of Petitions, the challenge is raised to the orders withdrawing the nomination of the Petitioners to the Syndicates of the two Universities. Further, in W.P. Nos. 25612/2013 and 26170-26171/2013, the validity of Section 39(1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 ('the said Act' for short) is also called into question. Sri K.M. Nataraj, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Haranahalli and Patil Associates for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 25964-25967/2013 submits that in all the 17 Universities in the State, the nominations to the Syndicates were withdrawn even when there is no semblance of reasons for the same. In support of his submission that the pleasure doctrine cannot be exercised arbitrarily and in the absence of reasons, he relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of B.P. Singhal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, JT (2010) 5 SC 640 . The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read out by him are as follows:

70. We have however already rejected the contention that the Governor should be in sync with the ideologies of the Union Government. Therefore, a Governor cannot be removed on the ground that he is not in sync or refuses to act as an agent of the party in power at the Centre. Though Governors, Ministers and the Attorney General, all hold office during the pleasure of the President, there is an intrinsic difference between the office of a Governor and the offices of Ministers and the Attorney General. The Governor is the Constitutional head of the State. He is not an Employee or an agent of the Union Government nor a part of any political team. On the other hand, a Minister is a hand-picked member of the Prime Minister's team. The relationship between the Prime Minister and a Minister is purely political. Though the Attorney General holds a public office, there is an element of Lawyer-Client relationship between the Union Government and the Attorney General. Loss of confidence will, therefore, be a very relevant criterion for withdrawal of pleasure, in the case of a Minister or the Attorney General, but not a relevant ground in the case of a Governor.

71. When a Governor holds office during the pleasure of the Government and the power to remove at the pleasure of the President is not circumscribed by any conditions or restrictions, it follows that the power is exercisable at any time, without assigning any cause. However, there is a distinction between the need for a cause for the removal, and the need to disclose the cause for removal. While the President need not disclose or inform the cause for his removal to the Governor, it is imperative that a cause must exist. If we do not proceed on that premise, it would mean that the President on the advice of the Council of Ministers, may make any order which may be manifestly arbitrary or whimsical or mala fide. Therefore, while no cause or reason be disclosed or assigned for removal by exercise of such prerogative power, some valid cause should exist for the removal. Therefore, while we do not accept the contention that an order under Article 156 is not justiciable, we accept the contention that no reason need be assigned and no cause need be shown and no Notice need be issued to the Governor before removing a Governor.

82. The President in exercising power under Article 156(1) should act in a manner, which is not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In the event of challenge of withdrawal of the pleasure, the Court will necessarily assume that it is for compelling reasons. Consequently, where the aggrieved person is not able to establish a prima facie instance of arbitrariness or mala fides, in his removal, the Court will refuse to interfere. However, where a prima facie case of arbitrariness or mala fides is made out, the Court can require the Union Government to produce records/materials to satisfy it that the withdrawal of pleasure was for good and compelling reasons. What will co