IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Abdul Azeem – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17396 of 2023 (GM - RES)
Decided On : 28-05-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. removal under doctrine of pleasure. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on fixed tenure. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. no prejudice in petitioner's removal. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. precedents on doctrine of pleasure's constraints. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER
M. Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court initially seeking a direction to consider his representation dated 23-05-2023 and grant all consequential benefits. During the pendency of the petition, he raises a challenge to the Notification dated 15-12-2023 which removes the petitioner from the post of Chairman, Karnataka State Minorities Commission, Bengaluru ('the Commission for short).
2. Heard Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be a highly qualified citizen having M.A., LL.B. degree and retired as Assistant Police Commissioner and is known for his scientific investigation of high profile criminal cases. The petitioner was also a Member of the Legislative Council and later in the year 2019 was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission for a period of three years (hereafter referred as the 'first tenure'). The appointment was in terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioner completes his first tenure on 15-10-2022. On completion of first tenure, an order comes to be passed continuing the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission for another term of three years, for it come to an end on 15-10-2025. When the petitioner was functioning as Chairman of the Commission, the men who man the Government changed. On 22-05-2023 a tippani emerges from the office of the Chief Minister which is communicated by the Chief Secretary to all the Departments. The communication was that the nominations made by the earlier Government will have to be annulled. In furtherance of the aforesaid communication/tippani a Notification comes to be issued on 22-05-2023 by which the continued nomination of the petitioner/2nd tenure is cancelled. The petitioner represents to the respondent/State on 24-05-2023 seeking to withdraw the said Notification. Owing to the representation, a Notification comes to be issued on 24-05-2023 withdrawing the Notification dated 22-052023 whereby the notification which cancelled the nomination of the petitioner for the second tenure comes to be withdrawn.
4. The petitioner continues as Chairman of the Commission.
The petitioner between the dates 22-05-2023 and 24-05-2023 had submitted a representation 23-05-2023 seeking consideration of the said representation to complete the term as a Chairman for another 2 years and 5 months. When there was delay in consideration of the said representation, he had knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition by filing it on 05-08-2023. This Court initially issued notice to the respondents. During the pendency of the petition, it appears, the Government issues a Notification on 15-12-2023 cancelling the nomination of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission. An application comes to be filed after issuing of the said Notification and this Court on 19-12-2023, on the application passes an order, which reads as follows:
'Heard Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice for the respondents - State.
ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2023
Heard Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents - State.
The petitioner is appointed as the Chair Person of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission by an order dated 15.10.2019 for a period of three years and subsequently, the tenure is extended on the same terms and conditions on 15.10.2022, again for a period of 3 years



B.P. Singhal vs Union Of India
Cheviti Venkanna Yadav Vs. State of Telangana and others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 283
D.K.Udaykumar VS. State of Karnataka reported in (2020) 3 KLJ 100
Dnyaneshwar Digamber Kamble vs State of Maharashtra
K.C. Shankare Gowda vs. The State of Karnataka
KHUSRO QURAISHI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
KRISHNA S/o BULAJI BORATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS' (2001) 2 SCC 441)
KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
Moti Ram Deka v. North East Frontier Railway [AIR 1964 SC 600]
OM Narain Agarwal Vs. Nagarpalika Shahajahanpur reported in (1993) 2 SCC 242
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [AIR 1958 SC 36]
RASID Javed Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in AIR 2010 SC 2275
State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid [AIR 1954 SC 245 : 1954 SCR 786]
State Of U.P. vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association
UNION OF INDIA v. SHARDINDU (2007) 6 SCC 276
UNION OF INDIA v. TULSIRAM PATEL (1985) 3 SCC 398
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672]
AI
"Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under common law - A public servant could be dismissed from service by Crown at its pleasure.
The doctrine of pleasure does not permit arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by the State, and such actions must comply with principles of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution.
The doctrine of pleasure allows for removal from office without notice or reason, provided it is not arbitrary, and does not apply to those holding civil posts under the Constitution.
The doctrine of pleasure permits removal from office without notice or reason, provided it is not arbitrary, and does not apply to those not holding civil posts under the Constitution.
The doctrine of pleasure permits removal from office without adherence to principles of natural justice when the appointee does not hold a civil post.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Doctrine of Pleasure cannot be invoked in an arbitrary manner, and valid reasons are required for the removal of an appointed member. The ....
The court determined that a nominated member's removal must adhere to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Cantonments Act, and arbitrary substitution without adherence to these processes is ill....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.