M L SONDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has laid a challenge to the withdrawal, on 18.7.2001, by the Union of India of his nomination as the Chairman of the Indian Council for Social Science Research (for short ICSSR). Although no reasons were given in this impugned order some were spelt out in the Government Press Note of the same date. It has been stated that the Government had received numerous complaints regarding the functioning of the ICSSR from Members of its Council. These complaints included non submission of accounts and budget , the undertaking of a number of new projects without the approval of the Council, upgradation of pay scales of the staff of the Council, non observation of quorum and rules, injudicious spending of funds provided by the Government resulting in a resource crunch etc. Predicated on these complaints the Government found that there had been a failure of the administrative machinery in the ICSSR. The Petitioner, having allegedly failed to abide by the Ministry's direction, and having engaged in malicious and false propaganda in the media had lost the confidence of members of the Council. For these considerations the Government had, in exercise of the powers under General Clauses Act, 1897, decided to withdraw the nomination of the Petitioner.

(2.) The Petitioner has ascribed the action of the Government to his refusal to be subservient to the political and ideological diktats of some members of the ruling party. His grievance is that his nomination was withdrawn so as to replace him with some other pliable Chairman who is partisan to the agenda of the Government, or. toe its line. (A) Is the writ petition maintainable?

(3.) On this aspect of the case Mr . Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior .counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner , has relied on Nagri Pacharini Sabha v. Vth Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge, Varanasi. (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 36, Sridhar v. Nagar Palika Jaunpur. AIR 1990 SC 307,Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.3.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani. AIR 1989 SC 1607, All India Sainik Schools Emp1oyees' Association v. Defence Minister-urn-Chairman Board of Governors. Sainik Schools Society New Delhi and others, (1989) Supp. I SCC 205 and Francis John v. Director of, Education , AIR 1990 SC 423. A similar objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a Research Professor from the Centre for Policy Research had arisen in C.W.P. 5928/2000 entitled Brahma Chellaney v. Union of India &, Others, decided on 18th January, 2002. The ICSSR was also a Respondent therein. The precedents mentioned by both sides had substantially also been cited in that writ petition. I had observed that if each of these precedents were to be discussed that judgment would become needlessly and avoidably prolix, especially since the Restatement of the law is readily available in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Others. AIR 1999 Supreme Court. 753. In these circumstances it would be most fruitful to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in extensio, since an answer to the gravamen of this contention can be found therein":-