Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was appointed as Part Time Chairman of the Aurangabad Housing and Area Development Board under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, by a notification dated 9 July 2019, with a three-year term as per Section 7 of the Act. Following a change in the State Government after assembly elections, the new government issued a notification on 31 January 2020 cancelling the petitioner's appointment in the 'public interest' under Section 12(2) of the Act, without providing any specific reasons. The petitioner challenged the cancellation, contending that the power under Section 12(2) is not unfettered and the removal was arbitrary. The State argued that appointments are at the pleasure of the government and the removal was valid. The Court examined Section 7 and particularly Section 12(2), which empowers removal at any time if it appears to the State Government necessary or expedient in the public interest. The Court emphasized that while the doctrine of pleasure allows removal, it is not untrammeled and must be exercised on valid grounds. The notification merely recited 'public interest' without any material to support the necessity or expediency, rendering the order arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Relying on B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, the Court quashed the impugned notification and directed restoration of the petitioner's position.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Doctrine of Pleasure - Limits of Executive Power - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, Section 12(2) - The State Government removed the petitioner from the post of Part Time Chairman invoking the pleasure doctrine under Section 12(2) without providing specific reasons, merely reciting 'public interest' in the notification. The Court held that the pleasure doctrine does not confer unfettered power and removal must be based on necessity or expediency in public interest, with reasons discernible from the record. The absence of reasons rendered the removal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 10-15). B) Statutory Interpretation - Removal of Members - Grounds for Exercise of Power - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, Section 12(2) - The power under Section 12(2) is not a license for arbitrary removal; the State Government must satisfy the condition of 'necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest'. A bald assertion of public interest without any accompanying material is insufficient to sustain the order. (Paras 10-15) C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Arbitrariness in Removal - Doctrine of Pleasure - The removal of a statutory appointee without reasons, despite a fixed term, is arbitrary and violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14. The Court relied on B.P. Singhal v. Union of India to hold that the pleasure doctrine cannot be exercised in an unfettered manner. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner as Part Time Chairman under Section 12(2) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 by invoking the pleasure doctrine without assigning any reasons and merely stating 'public interest' is arbitrary and illegal.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Doctrine of pleasure not unfettered
- removal under Section 12(2) of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act
- 1976 must be based on necessity or expediency in public interest
- reasons must be disclosed
- mere recital of 'public interest' insufficient
- arbitrary removal violates Article 14 of Constitution of India
