JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 29.01.2019, by which, the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as the Chairman of the Arunachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board).

2. The case in hand has a chequered history and the relevant facts are narrated below.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as the Chairman of the Board vide an order dated 04.12.2015 until further orders to be passed by the appropriate authority. In the meantime, one Shri R.S. Bhandari has approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) challenging appointments of Chairperson in various Pollution Control Boards of the different States. The NGT vide order dated 24.08.2016, interfered with such appointments which were mainly on the ground that the benefit was given to persons with political affiliation. As the NGT inherently lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate such matter, appeals were filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court including one by the present petitioner which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1359/2017. The said appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide an order dated 22.09.2017, holding that the NGT did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, had made certain observations which are extracted herein-below:

“21. It appears to us that the NGT realized its limitations in this regard and therefore issued a direction to the State Governments to reconsider the appointments already been made, but the seminal issue is really whether the NGT could at all have entertained a claim of the nature that was raised. For reasons given above, the answer must be in the negative and it would have been more appropriate for the NGT to have required the claimant to approach a constitutional court for the relief prayed for in the original application. To this extent therefore, the direction given by the NGT must be set aside as being without jurisdiction. However, we have been told that some States have implemented the order NGT and removed some members while others have approached this Court and obtained an interim stay order. Those officials who were removed pursuant to the order of the NGT (including the appellant Techi Tagi Tara) have an independent cause of action and we leave it open to them to challenge their removal in appropriate and independent proceedings. This is an issue between the removed official and the State Government the removal is not a public interest issue and we cannot reverse the situation.

“33. Keeping the above in mind, we are of the view that it would be appropriate, while setting aside the judgment and order of the NGT, to direct the Executive in all the States to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months, considering the institutional requirements of the SPCBs and the law laid down by statute, by this Court and as per reports of various committees and authorities and ensure that suitable professionals and experts are appointed to the SPCBs. Any damage to the environment could be permanent and irreversible or at least long-lasting. Unless corrective measures are taken at the earliest, the State Governments should not be surprised if petitions are filed against the State for the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto in respect of the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs. We make it clear that it is left open to public spirited individuals to move the appropriate High Court for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto if any person who does not meet the statutory or constitutional requirements is appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or is presently continuing as such.”

4. In the meantime, vide an order dated 03.03.2017, the petitioner was removed from the post of Chairman and in his place one Shri Kaling Moyang, Member of the Legislati