Back
1986 Supreme(Pat) 388
PATNA HIGH COURT
U.P.Singh, J.
R.P.Raja
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 661 of 1985 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 23, 1986
The doctrine of pleasure, as embodied in Sub-Sec. (7) of S.3 of the Bihar Regional Development Act, 1981, was applicable only to the Vice-Chairman, who was a whole-time paid employee, and not to the Chairman, who was an honorary position.
Headnote:
BIHAR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1981 - S.3(3)(a), S.4, S.5, S.7 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ART.14, ART.310, ART.311 - REMOVAL OF CHAIRMAN - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE - APPLICABILITY - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS - STATE POLICY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, nominated as Chairman of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority for a fixed term of three years, challenged the validity of a notification issued by the Government of Bihar removing him from the post under the doctrine of pleasure. The petitioner contended that the removal was illegal and ultra vires as it violated the provisions of the Bihar Regional Development Act, 1981, and the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notification removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman was ultra vires and quashed it. The court held that the doctrine of pleasure, as embodied in Sub-Sec. (7) of S.3 of the Act, was applicable only to the Vice-Chairman, who was a whole-time paid employee, and not to the Chairman, who was an honorary position. The court further held that the removal of the petitioner was not in accordance with the procedure laid down in S.5 of the Act, which required an opportunity of explanation and recording of reasons before any action could be taken. The court also held that the removal was arbitrary and mala fide, as it was motivated by the desire of the Urban Development Minister to appoint himself as the Chairman.
Issues: 1. Whether the doctrine of pleasure, as embodied in Sub-Sec. (7) of S.3 of the Bihar Regional Development Act, 1981, was applicable to the Chairman of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. 2. Whether the removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairman was in accordance with the procedure laid down in S.5 of the Act. 3. Whether the removal of the petitioner was arbitrary and mala fide.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the doctrine of pleasure, as embodied in Sub-Sec. (7) of S.3 of the Act, was applicable only to the Vice-Chairman, who was a whole-time paid employee, and not to the Chairman, who was an honorary position. The court relied on the fact that the Chairman was not a Government servant and that the Act itself made a distinction between the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman. 2. The court held that the removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairman was not in accordance with the procedure laid down in S.5 of the Act, which required an opportunity of explanation and recording of reasons before any action could be taken. The court noted that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner before his removal. 3. The court held that the removal of the petitioner was arbitrary and mala fide, as it was motivated by the desire of the Urban Development Minister to appoint himself as the Chairman. The court relied on the fact that the Minister had not filed an affidavit to deny the petitioner's allegations of mala fides.
Final Decision: The court quashed the notification removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman and allowed the petition.
1. By this writ application the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Notification of the Government of Bihar dt/- 13-6-1985 contained in Annexure-2, by which the Government of Bihar, in exercise of the power under Sub-Sec. (7) of S.3 of the Bihar Regional Development Act, 1981, removed the petitioner from the post of the Chairman on the purported ground of pleasure of the State of Bihar.
2. The Bihar Regional Development Authority Second Ordinance, 1976, was published in the Gazette in May, 1976 by which the various Regional Development Authorities were constituted and established in the State of Bihar. The Ranchi Regional Development Authority came into existence in accordance with the said Ordinance in 1976. It was later replaced by the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1951 (Bihar Act 40 of 1982). The Act came into force with effect from 25-1-1982. Sub-Sec. (2) of S.2 of the Act defines Authority means Regional Development Authority constituted under S.3 of the Act. Sec.3(1) deals with the constitution of a Regional Development Authority bearing the name of that region and Sub-Sec. (2) says that the authority shall be a body corporate by the aforesaid name. It shall have perpetual succession and a common seal with power to enter into contract and to acquire, hold and dispose of property bath moveable and immoveable and shall by the said name sue and be sued. Sub-Section (3) of S.3 reads as follows :
"(3) The Authority shall consist of the following members, namely :-
(a) A Chairman, who shall be the Minister of the Urban Development Department of the State of Bihar or any person nominated by the State Government."
3 In exercise of the said power under Sub-Sec. (3) of S.3 of the Act, by the order of the Governor of Bihar, a Notification was issued an 12th March, 1985 by which the petitioner was nominated as the Chairman of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority for the period of three years from the date of the publication of the notification. In accordance with the same, the petitioner took charge of the post immediately thereafter the Chairman of the Authority and continuing and discharging the duties of the Chairman under the Act.
4. Sub-Sec. (3) of S.3 of the Act deals with other members of the Authority, Chairman and the Vice Chairman and members of the Authority. Section 4 of the Act envisages disqualification for appointment of a member of the Authority which reads as follows :
"4. Disqualification for appointment of a member of the Authority.- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed as and for being a member of the Authority if he - a) has been convicted by a Criminal Court for offence involving moral turpitude, unless such conviction has been set aside;
b) is an applicant to be adjudicated bankrupt or insolvent or is an uncertificated bankrupt or undischarged insolvent;
c) has, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any partner, employee or employee any share of interest, any contract or employment with, by or on behalf of the Authority.
d) is a director, or a secretary, or a manager or other salaried officer of any incorporated company which has any share or interest in any contract or employment with by or on behalf of the Authority;
e) is of unsound mind.
(2) A person shall not be disqualified under Cl.(c) of Sub-S. (1) or be deemed to have any share or interest in any incorporated company which has any share or interest in any contract or employment either, by or on behalf of the Authority by reason only of his being a share-holder of such company; Provided that such person discloses to the Government the nature and extent of the share held by him."
5. Sec. 5 of the Act lays down the procedure for removal of a member of art authority;
"5. Removal of the Member.- (1) The Government may by notification, remove any member from office - (a) if he has, without the permission of the Authority, been absent from more than three consecutive meetings of the Authority, or
(b) if
