The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the Chairman of the Planning Authority is based on the 'Doctrine of Pleasure' of the State Government, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of quo warranto questioning the appointment of the respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the respondent No.4-Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (for short 'the Planning Authority').

2. The facts leading to the case are as under :

The present writ petition is filed in the form of a public interest litigation questioning the appointment of the respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the Planning Authority. The petitioner claims that the State has framed Rules for appointment of a Chairman and Members of the Planning Authority. It is contended that there is absolute violation of the said Rules and therefore, the persons who are unsuitable to the post and are not qualified are being appointed as Chairman of the Planning Authority. The petitioner has specifically contended that just prior to appointment, the respondent No.3 has changed his address. The petitioner has further seriously disputed the claim made by the respondent No.3 as a social worker. Specific malafides are attributed and a contention is taken that the respondent No.3 is appointed as a Chairman on the recommendation letter written by the MLA who is also the Political Secretary to the Chief Minister of the State. The petitioner has also alleged that one more MLA who is also the Minister for Revenue and close relative of respondent No.3 has also made recommendation for appointment of respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the Planning Authority.

3. On these set of allegations, the petitioner contends that the appointment runs contrary to the Rules and procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'). It is alleged that the respondent No.3 does not possess any of the qualifications contemplated under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules of 1965') and therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking writ of quo warranto.

4. On receipt of notice, the respondent/State has filed statement of objections and has stoutly denied the entire averments made in the writ petition. The respondent/State has taken a specific contention that an amendment was brought into the Rules of 1965 with effect from 1/9/2016 and by way of amendment to the Karnataka Planning Authorities (Amendment) Rules, 2015, the legislature has included Social Worker or any graduate to Rule 5(b)(iii) of the Rules of 1965. The respondent/State by placing reliance on this amendment has taken a specific contention that so far as eligibility criteria of Chairman is concerned, no qualification is prescribed and the eligibility criteria stands restricted only to the members who are part of the planning committee. The respondent/State has denied the allegation that respondent No.3 is appointed as a Chairman of the Planning Authority only on the recommendations by the Member of the Legislative Assembly.

5. The respondent/State refuting these allegations has contended that the entire process in selecting the Chairman is based on the reports secured from the jurisdictional Tahsildar and also after securing opinion from the Bangalore Metropolitan Development Authority. The respondent/State has also contended that the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Department has considered the entire material and on perusal of all the notings of the file and the materials, has placed the file for necessary orders and it is only after verifying the various notings, the respondent No.3 is appointed as the Chairman of the respondent No.4- Planning Authority. The respondent/State has also contended that appointment of respondent No.3 is based on 'Doctrine of Pleasure' of the State Government and therefore, the question of inviting applications would not arise. On these set of grounds, the respondent/State has sought dismissal of the writ petition.

6. The respondent No.3 has filed statement of objections and has stout