Songkhupchung Serto, J.

1. This a writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 03.03.2017, issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman of Arunachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board and replacing him with the respondent No. 4 with immediate effect and until further orders. The brief facts of the case are as follows;

The petitioner who was serving as Vice-Chairman of Arunachal Pradesh Agriculture Marketing Board was appointed as Chairman of Arunachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board, in the public interest vide Order No. CAB/G-05/2014, dated 4.12.15, issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in the rank of Minster of State with an honorarium of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only per month and entitled to all perks and facilities, TA/DA on official tour at the rate as applicable to the Secretary of the State Government. While the petitioner was serving as such, the impugned order dated 03.03.2017, was issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, relieving him from the post and at the same time appointing the respondent No. 4 in his place. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come to this court challenging the same.

2. The main ground on which the petitioner is challenging the impugned order, as submitted by his learned counsel, is that the Arunachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board was constituted under "The Arunachal Pradesh, Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Rules, 2000", which was framed under the Central Act namely, the "Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974". Therefore, the Chairman and members of the Arunachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board are appointed under the terms and conditions of service given under the section 5 of the Central Act, and as per the provision of the said section the terms of appointment of Chairman and members of the Board is 3(three) years. However, the Chairman or members of the Board can be removed before the expiry of their term of office by giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. But, in the case of the petitioner, he was not given a chance or opportunity of being heard as required under the said provision of the Act, therefore, the impugned order was issued in violation of the provision of the Act. Hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Tarak submitted that though the appointment order of the petitioner as Chairman of the Pollution Control Board did not specify the term of his office since the Board was constituted under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rule, his appointment has to be presumed to have been made for the term as provided under such Act. Therefore, his appointment cannot be term as pleasure appointment and hence, he cannot be removed like those appointees who are appointed under pleasure appointment but only as provided under the Act.

The learned counsel in support of his submission cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases given here below. Only the relevant portions of the cases cited are reproduced;

(i) Union of India v. Shardinhu, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 276.

"17. Learned Additional Solicitor General tried to support his submission on pleasure doctrine under Article 310 of the Constitution and submitted that the respondent has been appointed by the Central Government and therefore, it is the pleasure of the President to cut short his appointment. In this connection, learned ASG invited our attention to a decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel etc. [(1985) 3 SCC 398] especially to paragraphs 34 and 44. The distinction between statutory appointment and pleasure appointment has to be kept in mind. The pleasure appointments are such where the incumbents are appointed at the pleasure of the President, like Governors etc. As against this, statutory appointments are made under the statu