SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Guj) 187

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.S.Shah
DATTAJI CHIRANDAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 1708 of 1949
Decided On : 04/07/1998

Advocates Appeared: H.M.MEHTA, K.G.VAKHARIA, K.N.RAVAL, M.R.BAROT, P.G.DESAI, P.M.RAVAL, R.J.OZA, S.I.NANAVATI, S.N.SHELAT, TUSHAR MEHTA, V.H.DESAI, Y.N.OZA, Y.S.LAKHANI

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226, 154 – Gujarat Rules of Business, 1990 – Rule 5 – Replacing Chairman – Petitions under Arts. 226 of Constitution challenge the orders passed by the State Government replacing the Chairmen of about 12 Statutory Boards and Corporations and 13 Government Companies/societies – Held, when this Court has found no merit in the any petitions in Group A or Group B where the petitioners were appointed for a fixed term, there cannot be any merit in any of the petitions in Group C where the petitioners were admittedly not appointed for any fixed term – Hence, the said petitions also deserve to be dismissed – It must be held that there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners – Petitions deserve to be dismissed – Even if there be any merit, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, no relief deserves to be granted in favour of the petitioners in view of the following two aspects : (i) The petitioners were appointed as Chairmen of the respective Boards/ corporation by the previous Government belonging to a different political party – Present Government belongs to another party – If the petitioners are continued as Chairmen, they may be on logger-heads with the present government resulting into discord between the Government and the Boards/ corporations and, therefore, there cannot be effective and smooth implementation of the Government policies and programmes – Apex Court has made the following observations in the case of State of u. P. and Ors. v. U. P. State Law Officers Assn. and Ors. , JT 1994 (1) SC 225 which was a case relating to appointment of Chief Standing Counsel and other Government Advocates, where the method of appointment was different from that in the case of Smt. Sreelekha Vidyarthi :"the appointments may, therefore, be made on considerations other than merit and there exists no provision to prevent such appointments – Petitions Dismissed (Paras 48, 49, 50)

M. S. SHAH, J.

( 1 ). These petitions under Arts. 226 of the Constitution challenge the orders passed by the State Government replacing the Chairmen of about 12 Statutory Boards and Corporations and 13 Government Companies/societies. All these petitions were taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ). The facts giving rise to these petitions would be stated in detail later on, but broadly stated, it is the case of the petitioners in most of these petitions that the term of their office as Chairman was fixed for two/three years as the case may be. Reference is also made to the relevant statutory provisions under which the concerned Boards/corporations have been established providing for the term of office and reference is also made to the orders of appointment stipulating the term of two/three years, as the case may be. In case of Chairmen of Government Companies, the matters are governed by the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the respective companies which do not provide for fixed tenure, but reliance is placed on the orders of appointment appointing the petitioners for a fixed period of three years. There are a few cases being Special Civil Application Nos. 1722, 1724 and 1727 of 1998 where no tenure was fixed in the order of appointment. All the petitions being disposed of by this judgment are broadly classified into the following categories :- group A : Petitions where the offices involved are statutory offices where the relevant statute has provided for a term of office and such term is also provided for either in the initial appointment order or subsequent order issued by the Government :

( 3 ). The following petitions were argued as representative petitions :group A : (i) Special Civil Application No. 1708 of 1998 is filed by Shri Dattaji Chirandas who has been replaced as Director and Chairman on the Board of Directors of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (G. I. D. C.) established under the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1962. Dattaji Chirandas was initially appointed as Chairman of the G. I. D. C. , as per notification dated 3-5-1997 wherein his appointment as Chairman was until further orders, but subsequently by Resolution dated 14-8-1997, the petitioners tenure was fixed for two years with effect from the date of appointment, i. e. , from 3-5-1997 and, therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to hold the office of Chairman of the g. I. D. C. till 2-5-1999. But by the impugned notification dated 6-3-1998, the petitioner has been replaced by Mr. C. K. Koshi. (ii) Special Civil Application No. 1815 of 1998 is filed by Shri Natvarbhai Ramdas Patel who has been replaced from the office of chairman of the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority established under the Gujarat Town Planning Act. (iii) Special Civil Application No. 1709 of 1998 is filed by Shri Harshad brahmbhatt who has been replaced from the office of Chairman of the Gujarat Warehousing Corporation. Group B : Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 1998 is filed by Shri Jayvantsinh s. Gohil who has been replaced from the office of Member and chairman of the Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation which is a Government Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Group C : Special Civil Application No. 1724 of 1998 is filed by Dr. Rajendra shah who has been replaced from the office of Chairman, gandhidham Development Authority established under the gandhidham (Development and Control of Erection of Buildings) act, 1957.

( 4 ). In the aforesaid petitions in the group, the petitioners have averred that in spite of the fact that the petitioners are holding the respective offices for a fixed term, even before expiry of the term they are sought to be removed pursuant to the announcement made by Shri Keshubhai Patel, after being sworn-in as the Chief Minister of Gujarat on 4-3-1998, that the appointments made by the previous Government shall be cancelled an


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top