Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, G Ashok Kumar, was working as Managing Director of Karnataka Vidyuth Karkane and was also a nominated Director (Technical) on the Board of BESCOM (Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited). By an order dated 22.07.2019, the State Government appointed the third respondent, B.K. Udayakumar, as the nominated Director (Technical) on the Board of BESCOM in place of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the impugned order was passed without affording him any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that he had a legitimate expectation of continuance in the post and that the replacement was arbitrary and malafide. The respondents, including the State, BESCOM, and the newly appointed director, opposed the petition, submitting that the appointment was made in the interest of the corporation and that the petitioner had no right to continue as a nominated director. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the impugned order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The court held that even in administrative decisions, if they affect the rights or legitimate expectations of a person, a pre-decisional hearing is mandatory unless expressly excluded by statute. The court quashed the notification dated 22.07.2019 and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation before taking any further action in the matter. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Right to be Heard - The impugned order dated 22.07.2019 appointing the third respondent as a nominated Director (Technical) on the Board of BESCOM in place of the petitioner was set aside as it was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that even in administrative decisions affecting rights, a pre-decisional hearing is mandatory unless expressly excluded by statute. (Paras 2-5) B) Government Companies - Appointment of Directors - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The court held that the petitioner, being a Managing Director of a government company, had a legitimate expectation of continuance in the post and any removal or replacement without hearing is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the notification dated 22.07.2019 and directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation before taking any further action. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 appointing the third respondent as a nominated Director (Technical) on the Board of the fourth respondent Corporation in place of the petitioner, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is sustainable in law?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure-H) is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation before taking any further action in the matter. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Audi Alteram Partem
- Right to be Heard
- Administrative Law
- Government Companies
- Appointment of Directors
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
