COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. A. Dasharatha, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.766, 775 and 783 of 2024.

Mr. Lingala Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.772 of 2024.

Mr. N. Vishal, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.810 of 2024.

Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

Mr. C. Haripreeth, learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Market Committee.

2. These intra court appeals are filed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge by which the Writ Petitions preferred by the appellants have been dismissed and the validity of Government Orders issued by the Agriculture & Cooperation (Mkt.I) Department has been upheld. The issue involved in these batch of appeals being common, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, the facts from W.A.No.775 of 2024 are being referred to.

3. The appellant No.1 is the Chairman and the appellant No.2 is the Vice-Chairman and the other appellants are nominated Members of the Agriculture Market Committee, Jangoan (hereinafter referred to as, “the Committee”), which was constituted by an order dated 14.03.2023. The appellants were nominated for a term of two years i.e., up to 13.03.2025. The State Government, however, in exercise of powers under Section 5(11) of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”), issued G.O.Rt.No.158, dated 12.01.2024 withdrawing its pleasure from the Members of the Committee i.e., the appellants, who cease to hold the office with immediate effect.

4. The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition in which the validity of the said order dated 12.01.2024 was challenged. The learned Single Judge, without asking the respondents to file a counter affidavit, dismissed the writ petitions in limine. The said orders were challenged by the appellants in writ appeals. This Court, on 28.02.2024, while taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in B.P.Singhal v. Union of India, [(2010) 6 SCC 331], inter alia, held that the doctrine of pleasure can be invoked for valid reasons. The valid reasons must exist and must be disclosed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. This Court, therefore, remitted the matters to the learned Single Judge. The relevant extract of the orders passed by this Court reads as under:

“8. Paragraph 34 of the decision of the Supreme Court in B.P.Singhal (supra) reads as under:

34. The doctrine of pleasure, however, is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. It does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure. In other words, “at pleasure” doctrine enables the removal of a person holding office at the pleasure of an authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any notice or hearing to the person removed, and without any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any cause for the removal, or withdrawal of pleasure. The withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the authority, but can only be for valid reasons.

9. Thus, it is evident that the doctrine of pleasure can be invoked for valid reasons. The valid reasons must exist and must be disclosed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit.

10. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge. The respondents shall file the counter within two weeks. The learned Single Judge shall decide the writ petition afresh in accordance with law.”

5. Thereafter, the respondents filed counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 03.05.2024, inter alia, held that the loss of confide