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W.P. Nos. 25964-25967/2013 submits that in all the 17 Universities in the State, the nominations to the Syndicates were withdrawn even when there is no semblance of reasons for the same.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 gro