B S SIDDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Chairman of a statutory board at pleasure of the Government and he was removed also at pleasure. The validity of removal has been assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) By order dated 27th January, 1976, the State Government appointed the petitioner as Chairman of the Improvement Board of Shimoga which is a Board constituted under the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1976) (called shortly "the Act"). While he was continuing in the office, the President of India by a proclamation dated first January 1978 assumed the functions of the State Government and immediately thereafter the Governor terminated the appointment of the petitioner by order dated 19th January 1978. The said order reads as follows : GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA. No. HUD 12 MIB 78-VII Karnataka Governmet, Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, dt. 19th Jan. 1978 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976, (Karnataka Act No. 11 of 1976) the Government of Karnataka hereby terminates with immediate effect the appointment of Shri B. S Siddappa, as Chairman of the Improvement Board, Shimoga, made in Government Notification No. HMA 207 MNX 75, dt. 27th January, 1976 and appoints the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga as the Chairman of the said Board. By Order and in the name of the President of India. (Sd.) K. K. DASAPPA SETTY. Under Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Dept." It is seen from the above order that in the place of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner of Shimoga District was appointed as the Chairman of the said Board. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner handed over the charge to the Deputy Commissioner, and thereafter approached this Court for relief under Art. 226. The petitioner states that his appointment was for a term "of three years and his premature termination was illegal and contrary to S. 8 of the Act, It was arbitrary and smacks of political overtones. It is also stated that the removal without affording him any opportunity was illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. By amendment to the petition, one additional contention has been raised. It js stated that the power conferred by S. 5 of the Act is arbitrary and the words "subject to the pleasure of the Government" in the said section are illegal and void.

(3.) The State while resisting the petition, inter alia contended that the Board was constituted with the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman under Ss. 4 & 5 of the Act. The petitioner's removal was not for cause and therefore sec. ,8 is not attracted to his case. His removal was as a result of withdrawal of pleasure under S. 5, and therefore, not a justiciable issue The petitioner, in any event, is not entitled to any opportunity and the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked at an action taken under S. 5 of the Act. In regard to the last contention raised by the petitioner, it has been stated that the power to discharge or remove the petitioner is implicit in the power of appointment and that power cannot be fettered by any conditions, and therefore is not arbitrary.