BAPJAN ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In exercise of the power conferred by Section 22(1) of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act as amended by the Assam Panchayati Raj (Seventh Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, the Governor of Assam, on the expiry of the term of the Mahkuma Parishad, constituted an Ad hoc Committee in each Mahkuma Parishad as per list enclosed in the Notification dated April 19, 1983. The petitioner was appointed a Member of the Ad hoc Committee, Marigaon Mahkuma Parishad. Although it was an Ad hoc appointment, the petitioner remained as a member of the Mahkuma Parishad for over one year. In the said capacity, the petitioner performed various functions in the Mahkuma Parishad. However, the offices which the petitioner held was on the basis of his Membership of the Ad hoc Committee of the Marigaon Mahkuma Parishad. Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not contended that the Governor had no such power of appointment. Learned counsel does not dispute that when the power of appointment was there, the Governor has had the power of dismissal as well. As such, the impugned order is within the competence of the Governor. These aspects have not been contested. However, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before issuance of the order deleting his name from the list of members of the Ad hoc Committee, Marigaon Mahkuma Parishad constituted vide Notification dated April 19, 1983.

(3.) It may be stated at the outset that the order terminating the appointment does not show that the petitioner was stigmatised. The Governor nominated the petitioner in the Ad hoc Committee of the Mahkuma Parishad at his pleasure. The nomination of the petitioner in the Ad hoc Committee was the pleasure of the Governor, so also the termination of the office. In the instant case the petitioner did not get any appointment or nomination to hold the office for a particular period nor was it determined before the expiry of the said term. Even a removal before the expiry of the full term of the office by the Governor was considered to be a pleasure of the Governor in Surya Narain Choudhury v. Union of India, AIR 1982 Raj 1, wherein it has been held that the principles of natural justice do not apply in such cases. In Satyeswar Daolagupu v. Secy. to Govt. of Assam, AIR 1974 Gau 20, it has been held that when the Governor nominated the petitioner to the Mikir Hills District Council and terminated his Membership without giving any opportunity of hearing to the member, the principle of natural justice was not violated. It was at the pleasure of the Governor that the petitioner was nominated and the termination of his office was also at the pleasure of the Governor and the question of any hearing before making of the order did not arise. Accordingly we hold that the impugned order appointing some one else in place of the petitioner as a member of Ad hoc Committee was not in breach of the provisions of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act and the Rules, nor was it violative of the principles of natural justice.