KUMAR VARUN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Being aggrieved by the two orders of the same date i.e., 17.9.1998, passed by the State Government under Sub -section (7) of Section 23 of the Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) removing the Chairman and the Vice -Chairman of the Interim Council and the Members of the Interim Executive Council, the petitioner, who claims to be the Spokes Person of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and a member of the said Interim Executive Council, has filed this Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, the State of Bihar, Smt. Rabri Devi, the Chief Minister of the State, the Secretary to the Governor, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Shri M.P. Ajmera, Deputy Secretary, Planning and Development, Patna, and the Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council (hereinafter referred to as the JAAC) have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 to 6, respectively.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have filed counter -affidavit sworn by Sri M.P. Ajmera, Deputy Secretary, Planning and Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (respondent No. 5). The respondent No. 3 has filed a separate counter -affidavit. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. The petitioner has also filed supplementary affidavits. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions in support of the Writ Petition - (i) Sub -section (7) of Section 23 is ultra vires as it confers unbriddled, uncanalised, unguided and arbitrary powers on the Govt. to remove the Chairman, Vice -Chairman of the interim Council and the members of the Interim Executive Council; (ii) The Act contemplates compliance of principles of natural justice before passing the order of removal, but the impugned orders have been passed in violation of those principles; (iii) In any case the Impugned orders, read with counter -affidavit, case stigma and the same could not have been passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other members; (iv) The impugned orders have not been issued by or at the instance of the Governor of the State and they contain a wrong recital showing as if the Governor has passed them; and (v) The impugned orders are malafide and the same have been passed on account of extraneous considerations.