( 1 ) COMMON questions arise for consideration in all these writ petitions, which shall stand disposed of by this common order. The answer to the questions turns on the true import of the 'doctrine of pleasure' and the scope of judicial review in cases where the same is invoked. The facts lie in a narrow compass and may be stated at the outset.

( 2 ) PETITIONER in W. P. No. 39747 of 1999 was by an order of the state government appointed as chairman of the urban development authority, hubli whereas petitioners in W. P. nos. 43249 to 43252 of 1999, 41080 to 41083 of 1999 and 40480 to 40483 of 1999 were similarly nominated as members of the urban development authorities of haveri, davangere and shimoga. Petitioners in W. P. nos. 43245 and 43246 of 1999 were nominated as members of city municipal council, shimoga, while petitioners in W. P. nos. 43128 and. 44217 of 1999 were appointed as chairman of the town planning authorities of ranebennur and chintamani. The appointment/nomination of each one of the petitioners as also their continuance was at the pleasure of the government. Their grievance now is against orders issued by the government by which they have been e