Back
2008 Supreme(Chh) 279
2009(1) C.G.L.J. 248
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
SYED IQBAL AHMED RIZVI …… Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. & ANOTHER ……..Respondents
Writ Petition No. 771 of 2004
Decided on : 30-9-2008.
Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General, for the Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard before removing a person from a public office, as mandated by the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Minorities Act, 1996 and principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Appointment - Chhattisgarh State Minority Commission - Chhattisgarh State Commission for Minorities Act, 1996, Section 3(1), Section 3(2), Section 4(1), Section 4(3)(f) - The court discussed the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Minority Commission and the cancellation of the appointment by the State Government. The court highlighted the provisions of the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Minorities Act, 1996, particularly Section 4(3)(f) and the proviso to it, emphasizing the requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard before removal from office. The court also referred to various legal principles related to natural justice and fair play, emphasizing the need for proper opportunity of hearing before passing orders with civil consequences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Minority Commission for a term of three years but was removed from the position before completion of the term without being afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the removal of the petitioner without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard was contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Minorities Act, 1996 and violated the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Issues: The main issue was the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as Chairman of the Commission without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, in violation of the Act and principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the removal of the petitioner without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard was contrary to the Act and principles of natural justice, and therefore, the impugned order was vitiated and quashed. The petitioner was entitled to all consequential reliefs for the remaining period of the appointment.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to make payments of salary, perks, and allowances to the petitioner for the remaining period of the appointment, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
1. The challenge in this petition is the order dated 26.2.2004 (Annexure P/1), whereby the appointment of the petitioner by order dated 12.7.2001 (Annexure P/2), as Chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Minority Commission (for short 'the Commission') was cancelled.
2. The indisputable facts, in narrow compass are that in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2) of the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Minorities Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996'), the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Commission for a term of three years from the date he assumed the charge under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1996. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner assumed the charge on the same date. Two other members were appointed along with the petitioner. The petitioner was granted status of the cabinet minister and the members were granted the status of the state minister with all benefits on 12.7.2001.
3. Ms Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission was cancelled on 26.2.2004 before completion of the term of the appointment. She relied on the proviso to Section 4 (3) (f) of the Act, 1996, wherein it is provided that no person shall be removed under this clause until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Admittedly, according to Ms Fouzia Mirza, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. She relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Badruddin Quraishy Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, in support of her contention.
4. On the other hand Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State would submit that the State Government was fully competent to remove the petitioner from the post of Chairman without assigning any reason or without affording an opportunity of hearing.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
6. Section 3, Section 4 (1) and Section 4 (3) (f) reads as under:
"3. (1) The State Government shall constitute a body to be known as the Madhya Pradesh State Commission for Minorities to exercise the power conferred on, and to perform the function assigned to it under this Act.
(2) The Commission shall consist of a Chairperson and two members to be nominated by the State Government hum amongst persons of eminence, ability and integrity :
Provided that the Chairperson and one member shall be from amongst the minority communities."
"4. (1) The Chairperson and every member shall hold office for a term of three years from the date he assumes charge."
"4. (3) The State Govel1lillent shall remove a person from the office of Chairperson or a Member referred to in sub-section (2) if that person:
(f) has, in the opinion of the State Government so abused the position of Chairperson or Member as to render that person's continuance in office detrimental to the interests of minorities of the public interest;
Provided that no person shall be removed under this clause until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter."
7. The petitioner was granted status of cabinet minister with all the perks, allowances and facilities granted to the cabinet minister. Admittedly, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to put forward his case. The action of the respondents/authorities is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1996 as well as violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action.
8. This Court, dealing with a similar situation in the matter of Badruddin Quraishy (supra), in the case of appointment of the Haj Committee, held that if appointment of a member is for a term of three years, he cannot be removed before completion of three years except in accordance with law.
9. It is well settled principle of law that an order vi
