PRADIP NANDY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the Notification dated 9.9.96 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Town and Country Planning Department, wherebv he has been removed from the Chairmanship of Silchar Development Authority. By the said notification, the Silchar Development Authority has been Purportedly reconstituted for implementation of the Masterplan and Zoning Regulation for Silchar and by endorsing a copy thereof the petitioner has been directed to hand over the Charge of the Chairman.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Silchar Development Authority vide notification dated 4.10.91 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the tenn of the office was for a period of three years from the date of issue of this notification. Thereafter, by a W/T message dated 1.7.95 (Annexure-2) the term was extended for another three years with effect from 1,7.95. The petitioner's allegation is that the impugned notification dated 9.9.96, in effect, was an order of removal as Chairman, more particularly it was superseded the earlier W/T message dated 1.7.95. Further allegation of the petitioner is that the order was actuated by malafide and founded on colourable exercise of power because behind this order political consideration with ulterior motive has played a vital roll. According to the petitioner the respondents can remove him from the office of the Chairman before the expiry of the tenure of three years only as per provisions of Section 8-B(4) of the Assam Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1962 (for short' the Act') and by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. In the instant case the petitioner has not been even served with the impugned order of notification.Hence the present petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. B .K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.G. Baruah, Advacate General of Assam. Mr. Sharma has submitted that the petitioner has been removed from the office of Chairman before the expiry of the tenure, therefore, provisions of Section 8B(4) of the Act is applicable, which lays down the conditions precedent for removal of any member including Chairman. It has been further submitted that it is the mandatory requirement andi even if the conditions precedent are fulfiled, then also an opportunity to show cause must be given before his removal from the office. However, in this case there is no such compliance, therefore, the impugned order violated the mandatory requirement under Section 8B(4) of the Act. Mr. Sharma has further submitted that Section 8C lays down the terms of office of the Chairman, and Rule 13 of the Assam Town and Country Planning (Constitution of Authority) Rules, 1961 prescribes the tenure of the Chairman and it shall not be less than three years. Therefore, according to Mr. Sharma the tenure of the Chairman may be more than three years and accordingly the Government extended the period of tenure by the Annexure-2 W/T Message dated 1.7.95.