Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
REVATI MOHITE DERE, NEELA GOKHALE
Pritam Dinkar Adhav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through its Defence Secretary Ministry of Defence Government of India 101-A, South Block, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the nomination process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented by the petitioner. (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's observation on statutory provisions. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's ruling on the power of substitution. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. final conclusion declaring the notification invalid. (Para 46) |
JUDGMENT :
Revati Mohite Dere, J.
1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 Rule. Mr. Khandeparkar, Senior Counsel waives service on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mrs. Neeta Masurkar waives service on behalf of the Respondent No.2. Mr. Rajiv Patil, Senior Counsel waives service on behalf of the Respondent No.5.
3 Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal.
4 At the outset, I may note that I am delivering a separate judgment, as my learned Sister and I have taken divergent views on the issues arising in the petition, and consequently, on the conclusion.
5 By this petition, the Petitioner has impugned the Notification dated 06.03.2025, issued by the Ministry of Defence, whereby the Petitioner’s name, as a nominated member of the Cantonment Board, Deolali, was substituted with that of Respondent No.5–S
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....
"Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under common law - A public servant could be dismissed from service by Crown at its pleasure.
Nominated members of statutory bodies cannot be unilaterally removed by the nominating authority without a directive from a higher authority, ensuring continuity in representation.
Nominations under the Karnataka Nurses Act can be revoked at the Government's discretion and do not confer statutory tenure requiring adherence to natural justice for termination.
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.
“Arbitrary” and “capricious” in legal sense, as distinguished from opprobrious or popular meaning, are used in technical sense as meaning without rational basis.”
The petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the nomination to the Waqf Board as he failed to demonstrate any legal grievance, and the nomination complied with the Waqf Act's provisions.
The exercise of the 'Doctrine of Pleasure' by the Chancellor must not be arbitrary or capricious; the court can intervene if such withdrawal lacks justification.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
