IMPORTANT POINT
Mandatory adherence to principles of natural justice and the requirement to follow due procedure of law under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

JUDGMENT

1. Impugning the proceedings dated 14.7.2022 issued by the Additional Secretary (Forest, Environment and Climate Change), Government of Manipur, alleging it to be in violation of Section 5(3) and 6(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Rule 2(iii)(b) of the Rules framed by the Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department, Manipur as per the notification dated 8.7.2021, the present writ petition has been filed. A direction has also been sought on the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation preferred by the petitioner on 12.4.2022.

2. The facts in a nutshell are as under:

The petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Manipur Pollution Control Board by an order dated 24.3.2017 as per Section 4(2)(a) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. During the currency of the tenure of the petitioner, Rules were framed under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1982 pursuant to the judgment and order dated 22.9.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.1359 of 2017 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein a specific direction was given to all the States/ Union Territories to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules for appointment of Chairman and Member Secretary of the State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees. Thus, the Rules for the Appointment of Chairman of Manipur Pollution Control Board 2021 were framed. Consequent to the framing of the aforesaid Rules, the Manipur Pollution Control Board has been reconstituted by an order dated 30.7.2021 consisting of Eleven Members, including the petitioner as Chairman of the said reconstituted Board, under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

3. The petitioner, apprehending removal from the present post of Chairman, Manipur Pollution Control Board, preferred two representations - one to the Hon'ble Minister, Manipur and the other to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur on 12.4.2022, requesting them to permit him to continue in the said post for a period of three years with effect from 30.7.2021 to 30.7.2024 in terms of the notification dated 8.7.2021 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest and Environment), Government of Manipur. According to the petitioner, the said representations are still pending consideration.

4. It is averred that by the order dated 14.7.2022, the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest, Environment and Climate Change), Government of Manipur, appointed Dr. Usham Deben Singh, MLA the private respondent herein as the Chairman of the Manipur Pollution Control Board. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Mr. N. Jotendro, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order dated 14.7.2022 was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to show cause as contemplated under Sections 5(3) and 6(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

6. The next plank of the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari and others, (2018) 11 SCC 734, the Rules in question have been framed by all the State Governments, including the State of Manipur, and thereupon the Board was reconstituted on 30.7.2021 and the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to continue in the said post for three years in view of the notification dated 8.7.2021.

7. It is further submitted that private respondent appointed by the impugned order does not possess the requisite qualification, whereas the petitioner has rich experience as an environmentalist and his services received accolades from all corners. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the services of the petitioner should not be terminated in the midst of his tenure.

8. Mr. Lenin Hij