SYED MUDIR AGHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission, the second respondent herein. The said Commission is constituted under Section 3 of the karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). He was appointed by the order dated 5-10-2007 passed under Section 4 of the Act. The term of office prescribed under the Act is for a period of three years from the date of appointment, which is "subject to the pleasure of the Government".

(2.) ON 9-10-2007, President of India promulgated president's rule by issuing proclamation under article 356 of Constitution of india. After promulgation of President's Rule, the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka issued a Note dated 12-10-2007 instructing all the Principal Secretaries to Government to request the non-official Chairman of all the corporation/bodies to resign and surrender the official vehicles attached to them immediately. Copy of the said Note is produced at annexure-B to the writ petition. Subsequently, the letter dated 17-10-2007 is sent by the Secretary to Government, Minorities Welfare (Social Welfare)Department, Bangalore to the secretary of the Karnataka State Minorities commission (respondent No. 2 herein), as per annexure-C to take action pursuant to the letter dated 12-10-2007. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the Note of the chief Secretary at Annexure-B, dated 12-10-2007 and the letter dated 17-10-2007 at Annexure-C. The petitioner has also prayed for declaration that Section 4 (1) of the Act to the extent that incorporates the expression "subject to pleasure of the Government" is void and unconstitutional and also to declare the said expression as invalid.

(3.) SRI A. N. Jayaram, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is neither the Chairman of the Corporation or Board, but the Chairman of the Commission created under the statute and therefore, the Note of the Chief Secretary and the letter of the Secretary at annexures-B and C respectively, cannot be executed against the petitioner; that under the president's Rule, the Governor cannot exercise powers more than that of the elected Government; that the pleasure doctrine is not found in similar statutes of other States; a person can be disqualified for being appointed or being continued member of the Commission only if he incurs disqualification as contained in Section 5 of the Act. According to him, as the pleasure doctrine is found under article 310 of the Constitution, which is applicable to civil servants and military personnel, it should not be made applicable to other authorities. He heavily relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram patel, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416. According to him, the transactions of business Rules dated 12-10-2007 issued after promulgation of the President's Rule are illegal and cannot be acted upon.