AJAY DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner requested for pass-over/keeping back the matter. This request, however, has been vehemently opposed by the Counsel appearing for the private respondents on the ground that the matter is pending for quite some time and the request for pass-over is, in fact, request for adjournment as the petition would not reach for hearing once it is kept back due to heavy Board. Since the request for pass-over is opposed, we decline the said request made by the petitioner.

(2.) This Public Interest Litigation is filed to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Chairman of M.P. State Pollution Control Board. It is noticed that the respondent No. 3 was initially appointed in the year 2009 after following due selection process for a period of 3 years. Before expiry of the said period, the State Government decided to issue advertisement to fill in the impending vacancy, which would take place after the retirement of respondent No. 3. However, before any further steps could be taken on the basis of the said advertisement, the State Government decided to invoke powers available under Section 5(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which permits giving extension of 3 years to the person in office and allow him to continue as Chairman of the Board for the extended period. Accordingly, the State Government after due deliberations, extended the period of Chairman of the respondent No. 3, which will now expire in the year 2015.

(3.) As aforesaid, the initial appointment of the respondent No. 3 was after following due selection process. The issue regarding eligibility of the respondent No. 3 has already been considered in the said selection process. No challenge to the initial appointment was made from any quarters. Similarly, the fact that the State Government initially issued advertisement and then decided to extend the tenure of existing Chairman for another three years cannot be the basis to assume that the State Government has no power to do so. It is not a case of want of jurisdiction of, the State Government, which could have been the basis to question the decision of the State Government. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the performance of the respondent No. 3 while he was in office as Chairman was of such a nature that he did not deserve extension on that count. General assertions have been made in the writ petition that Port Folio Minister decided to bring in his candidate by this backdoor method. If the method of extension is provided in law, we fail to understand as to how it will be a backdoor method of re-nomination of the respondent No. 3. In our opinion, there is no merit in this Public Interest Litigation. Hence, the same is dismissed.