The withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the fancy of the State Government and can only be for valid reasons and for the public good.

(A.S. Oka, J.)

1. The Parties were put to notice on the earlier date that these petitions will be disposed of finally at the admission stage. Detailed submissions were made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State Government. On 21st April, 2015 submissions were fully heard and the petitions were fixed for the judgment.

FACTS

2. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation was constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (for short “The said Act”). Section 3 of the said Act provides for establishment of Road Transport Corporations in the States. It is in exercise of the powers under Section 3 that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the said Corporation”) has been established. Section 5 of the said Act provides for constitution of Road Transport Corporations. The Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 provides that the management of the Corporations established under Section 3 shall vest in the Board of Directors (for short “the Board”). The Sub-Section (2) thereof provides that the Board shall consist of a Chairman and such other Directors, being not less than five and not more than seventeen, as the State Government may think fit to appoint. Section 8 confers powers on the State Government to remove the Chairman or any Director from their respective offices. The Rule making power under the said Act has been exercised by the State Government by framing the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Rules, 1952 (for short “The said Rules”)

3. On 06th August 2012, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.326 of 2015 was appointed as the Chairman of the said Corporation by the State Government. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.1171 of 2015, 1172 of 2015 and 1173 of 2015 were appointed as Non-official Directors on the Board of Directors of the said Corporation. Their appointment was made by a notification dated 06th September 2012.

4. The cause of action for filing these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen on the basis of an order passed by the State Government on 23rd December 2014 in purported exercise of the powers under Rule 4A of the said Rules. By the said order, the State Government purportedly terminated the appointment of the petitioners in these petitions with effect from 22nd January 2015. In these petitions, the challenge is to the said order dated 23rd December 2014.

5. During the pendency of these petitions, the State Government amended the said Rules by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Amendment) Rules, 2015 (for short “Amendment Rules”). By the Amendment Rules, Rule 3 of the said Rules was amended providing that the Hon'ble Minister in-charge of the Transport Department of the Government of Maharashtra shall be the ex-officio Chairman of the Board of the said Corporation. By amending Writ Petition No.326 of 2015, a challenge has been incorporated to the validity of the Amendment Rules.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of Writ Petition No.326 of 2015 has invited our attention to the relevant provisions of the said Act and the said Rules. He pointed out that there are various provisions including Section 8 which distinguish between the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the Directors. He submitted that the Chairman can be removed only on the grounds specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 and the power of simplicitor termination under Sub-Section (2) of Section 8 can be exercised only in respect of the Directors. He urged that the power of termination under Sub-Section (2) of Section 8 cannot be exercised in respect of the Chairman. Inviting our attention to Rule 4A of the said Rules, he would urge that the said Rule is applicable to the termination of the appointment of Directors and not to the termination of the appointment of the Chairman. He pointed out that even the sai