IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF MAY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

WRIT APPEAL NO.3181/2018 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

O. SHANKAR,

S/O LATE OBAIAH

AGED 37 YEARS

CHAIRMAN,

DR.BABU JAGAJIVAN RAM

LEATHER INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION LTD.,

HEAD OFFICE: NO.17/15, OBLONG BLOCK

2^ND FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING

J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI.SACHIN.B.S., ADVOCATE) (THROUGH V/C)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BANGALORE-560 001.

2.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKASA SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560 001.

2

3.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

(THROUGH V/C)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/10/2018 PASSED

IN WRIT PETITION NO.25900/2018 BY THE LEARNED

SINGLE

JUDGE

AND

CONSEQUENTLY

ALLOW

WRIT

PETITION NO.25900/2018 AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

DAY, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR., DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed by the appellant

calling in question the order passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.24368/2018 c/w. W.P.Nos.24365/2018,

25844/2018 & 25900/2018 dated 22.10.2018, insofar as

pertaining to W.P.No.25900/2018.

2.

It is stated that the appellant being the

petitioner in W.P.No.25900/2018 was nominated as a

Chairman of Dr.Babu Jagajivan Ram Leather Industries

Development Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as

3

‘Corporation’

for

short)

by

virtue

of

Government

Notification dated 02.11.2016 vide Annexure-‘A’ to the

Writ Petition. It is averred that once the nomination is

made, it becomes statutory character. Therefore, before

cancellation/ revocation/withdrawal, the incumbent to the

post ought to have been heard, but without doing so, the

respondents passed an order on 29.5.2018 vide Annexure-

‘D’, that the nomination of the appellant as Chairman of

the said Corporation was cancelled. Therefore, the

appellant challenged the said cancellation order by filing

W.P.No.25900/2018.

3.

The learned Single Judge after considering the

legal issue involved in the factual matrix of the case, has

dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

4.

The

learned

Single

Judge

after

making

elaborate discussion on ‘doctrine of pleasure’ as principle

of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and by this

Court has rejected the contentions of the appellant. It is

observed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant

had been appointed as Chairman of the Corporation which

was ‘until further orders’ and this appointment is as per

Memorandum of Association and Article of Association

4

provided for the same. Therefore, after referring to the

Memorandum of Association and Article of Association of

the Corporation as the nomination was made by the

respondent until further orders, at the pleasure, the

respondent cancelled the nomination of the appellant as

Chairman of the Corporation. Hence, the present writ

appeal is filed challenging the dismissal of the writ petition

filed by the appellant.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged

various grounds in the memorandum of appeal and also

submitted that the ‘doctrine of pleasure’ is not a licence to

act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically

or capriciously. Further, the learned counsel submitted

that the tenure of the Chairmanship is for a period of five

years but prematurely the Chairmanship of the appellant is

cancelled, which is contrary to the Memorandum of

Association and Article of Association of Corporation. That

on 02.11.2016