Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
Dr. M. Sudheendra Rao, Chairman Karnataka State Pollution Control Board – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7222 of 2020
Decided On : 17-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, Sri. Jayanth Dev Kumar.
For the Respondents: Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, Sri. Kiran Kumar, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Sri. B. Vinayaka.
Headnote:
Water Act, 1974 – Section 5(4) - GC Act, 1897 - Section 19(1) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Scope of writ jurisdiction - First Information Report - Whether said letter constitutes resignation in eye of law remains writ large for consideration and therefore there is no approbation or reprobation standard books on law of conveyances are replete with cases wherein despite admitting genuineness of signatures execution of documents is held not proved this could be true of documents like resignation letters too it hardly needs not be stated that though a Resignation Letter is not a conveyance difference between them per se is immaterial therefore proposition canvassed by learned AAG cannot be pressed into service - Whether there is a Resignation Letter in fact - Whether subject Resignation Letter is valid and effective in eye of law - Whether subject Resignation Letter can be treated as having been addressed to State Government - Whether provision is mandatory or directory in facts of case may not be relevant either in fact opposing counsel did not dispute nature of said provision nor did they resist Writ Petition on ground of substantial compliance of provision short and long of their case was that Chief Minister acts as limb of State Government and therefore what is immediately addressed to Chief Minister is immediately addressed to State Government and further that any argument in variance thereof would upset constitutional principles by which Government of day is run in view of this there is no need to discuss Rulings cited for proposition that when law imposes a duty on citizen it is arguably mandatory whereas statutory duty imposed on shoulder of Caesar is directory - After service of notice Government is represented by learned and it has filed Statement of Objections resisting Writ Petition KSPCB is represented by learned Senior Advocate there are Advocates on record for respective parties - Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner strenuously argues that some loose sheets of papers containing petitioners signatures having been misused by quarters that be a resignation letter is fabricated vide Annexure-E - Government having wrongly treated it to be resignation has accepted same vide impugned Notification - Resignation letter could not have been acted upon by Government since it was not addressed to it as required u/s 5(4) of Water Act, 1974 however first contention as to authorship of alleged resignation letter has been given up regard being had to nature and scope of writ jurisdiction although not conceding it he has relied upon a set of Rulings in support of his case – Held, Text and context of relevant constitutional provisions as interpreted in supra coupled with provisions of the 1977 Rules show prominent position assigned to Chief Minister of State true it is that Chief Minister is not manifestation of State unlike King in England but he acts as a limb of Government is not legally disputable therefore letter of resignation addressed to Honble Chief Minister Government of Karnataka can be safely construed as one addressed to State Government in terms of section 5(4) of 1974 Act an argument to contrary falls foul of constitutional scheme as consistently articulated by Apex Court in a catena of decisions including - Referred to text of Article 300 of Constitution to buttress his argument that letter of resignation made to Chief Minister cannot be construed as one made to State Government he submitted that it is only Secretary of department concerned who can be termed as State Government going by text of section 5(4) r/w relevant provisions of 1977 Rules Article 300 speaks of suits and proceedings to be instituted by or against Govt. of India or Govt. of a State as a juristic person Apex Court has construed this Article keeping in view Transaction of Business Rules concerned vide Secretary this court is at loss to know as to how this Article is relevant to case at hands especially when what Secretary does needs to be construed as what Minister of department concerned does vide Case this view is supported by text of Section 19(1) of GC Act, 1897 - In any Central Act or Regulation made after commencement of this Act it shall be sufficient for purpose of expressing that a law relative to chief or superior of an office shall apply to deputies or subordinates lawfully performing duties of that office in place of their superior to prescribe duty of superior - It hardly needs to be stated that Minister is head of department concerned by virtue of Transaction/Allocation of Business Rules and that Secretaries regardless of their varying nomenclatures act as his deputies although in formal paper works names of these deputies are reflected a contra argument would render Minister subservient to other public servants if not redundant and this would demean very Cabinet Form of Government which is enacted in court Constitution - Submission that text of Section 5(4) of 1974 Act being mandatory in nature Chief Minister cannot be equated to State Government does not appear to be sound for discussion whether the provision is mandatory or directory in facts of case may not be relevant either in fact opposing counsel did not dispute nature of said provision nor did they resist Writ Petition on ground of substantial compliance of provision short and long of their case was that Chief Minister acts as limb of State Government and therefore what is immediately addressed to Chief Minister is immediately addressed to State Government and further that any argument in variance thereof would upset constitutional principles by which Government of day is run in view of this there is no need to discuss Rulings cited for proposition that when law imposes a duty on citizen it is arguably mandatory whereas statutory duty imposed on shoulder of Caesar is directory - Writ Petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. Petitioner who was appointed as the Chairman of second respondent-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [hereafter “KSPCB”] vide Notification dated 30.12.2019 at Annexure-A, is knocking at the doors of writ court for calling in question the Notification dated 02.05.2020 at Annexure-B issued by the first respondent-State (hereafter “Government”) whereby, his Chairmanship has been determined by virtue of resignation allegedly given by him.
2. After service of notice, Government is represented by the learned AAG Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa and it has filed the Statement of Objections resisting the Writ Petition the KSPCB is represented by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, there are Advocates on record for the respective parties.
3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Rajagopal appearing for the petitioner strenuously argues that:
(i) some loose sheets of papers containing petitioner's signatures having been misused by the quarters that be, a resignation letter dated 02.05.2020 is fabricated vide Annexure-E.
(ii) the Government having wrongly treated it to be the resignation, has accepted the same vide impugned Notification.
(iii) the resignation letter could not have been acted upon by the Government since it was not addressed to it as required u/s 5(4) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereafter “1974 Act”) however, the first contention as to authorship of the alleged resignation letter has been given up, regard being had to the nature and scope of writ jurisdiction, although not conceding it; he has relied upon a set of Rulings in support of his case.
4. Learned Addl. Advocate General Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for the Government in substance passionately contends that:
(i) in petitioner's First Information Report concerning alleged forgery and fabrication, the jurisdictional police after investigation, have filed a ‘B’ Report.
(ii) a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate in the sense that at one breath, disputing the authorship of resignation letter and at the other, asserting that the same does not constitute resignation in the eye of law and it is not open to the petitioner to take up mutually destructive averments.
(iii) the resignation letter is addressed to the Chief Minister of the Govt. of Karnataka and therefore, it is addressed to the State Government; banking upon certain Rulings of the Apex Court in support of these contentions, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition with costs.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the KSPCB vehemently opposes the Writ Petition contending that:
(i) there is no dispute as to the authenticity of petitioner's signature on the resignation letter; petitioner as an after-thought, cannot now turn around and dispute the authenticity of the letter as if he is an illiterate.
(ii) the subject letter is addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka and therefore, the requirement of Section 5(4) of the 1974 Act is perfectly satisfied.
(iii) under the constitutional scheme, the Chief Minister is the chief executive of the State Government, the resignation made to him is a resignation made to the State Government itself; he cites a few decisions of the Apex Court to substantiate his contentions.
6. Having extensively heard all the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers and also after adverting to the relevant Rulings cited at the Bar, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter in view of the following discussion.
7. As to forgery and fabrication of Resignation Letter:
(a) The first contention of the petitioner that he had never authored the resignation letter in question and that the blank papers containing his signatures have been misused for fabricating the one has been given up, regard being had to the nature and scope of writ jurisdiction that ill-suits adjudication of disputed facts; however, the issue as to fraud, forgery and fabrication is kept open for bei
