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 court emphasized the need for fairness and valid reasons in the exercise of discretion by the State Government.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Dige, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

2. The petitioner is appointed as a Part Time Chairman of Aurangabad Housing and Development Board, Aurangabad (Hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) by respondent no.1- State Government. On 31st January, 2020, a notification was issued under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) by respondent no.1 - State Government and by the said notification, the appointment of the petitioner as Part Time Chairman is cancelled. The said notification was communicated to the petitioner on 11th February, 2020. Same are assailed in the present Writ Petition.

3. Mr.Atul Karad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per section 7 of the said Act, the term of petitioner as Part Time Chairman is for three years from the date of publication of appointment in the Official Gazette. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed on 9th July, 2019 by then State Government. Thereafter, the assembly elections took place in the month of October, 2019 and new State Government has formed by alliance of three political parties. Section 12(2) of the said Act gives power to the State Government to remove President, Vice-President or any non-official member from his office even prior to the stipulated period of three years. However, the said powers are not unfettered. The State Government while exercising it’s powers has to notify the reasons. Section 12(2) prescribes that the President, Vice-President and other members shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government but the Doctrine of Pleasure cannot be invoked in an arbitrary manner. Mere mentioning the public interest, the petitioner is removed from the post in the public interest, but no reason is given for removal of the petitioner from the post of Part Time Chairman. The Notification dated 31.01.2020 is contrary to the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner’s appointment was for three years. In absence of any material before State Government regarding necessity and/or expedient to remove the petitioner in public interest, the impugned Notification dated 31st January, 2020 is issued.

The said action of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and not as per the procedure contemplated in the said Act. The appointment of the petitioner is statutory appointment. The petitioner has put lot of efforts to implement the schemes as prescribed in the Statute for the Marathwada Region for Housing Development. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent has nowhere mentioned in the Notification what is the public interest involved for issuing such notification. Hence prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Notification dated 31st January, 2020 along with the communication dated 11th February, 2020. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments in the cases of B.P. Singhal V/s Union of India reported in 2010(6) SCC 331, Jeevanrao Vishwanathrao Gore V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015(5) Mh.L.J. 375, Dnyaneshwar Digamber Kamble V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2016(1) Mh.L.J. 602 and Sampat Paraji Jawalkar and others V/s The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.2949 of 2015 and other connected matters (decided on 04.02.2016).

4. Mr.S.B. Yawalkar, learned A.G.P. submitted that the appointment of the petitioner is purely on the pleasure of the State Government. Section 12(2) of the said Act gives power to the State Government to cancel the appointment of President, Vice-President and any member of the Board. The provisions of the said Act does not preclude the State Government from exercise of it’s powers resorting to Doctrine of Pleasure for nominating a more suitable person. The petitioner has not preferred any representation before the State Government for seeking further details in respect of the te