TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this petition is directed against the appointment of the 3rd respondent Dr. Dangeri, as Chairman of Karnataka State Pollution control Board. The petition which inter alia seeks a writ of quo warranto and purports to have been filed in public interest assails the appointment in question on precisely speaking two distinct grounds. Firstly, it is urged that respondent Dr. Bangeri does not qualify for appointment in the light of the requirements of Section 4 (2) of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, in that he does not possess any special knowledge or experience in administering institutions dealing with the said matters. Alternatively, it is urged that the petitioner is disqualified from being appointed as Chairman under Section 6 (f) of the Act on account of he being the proprietor of a concern called M/s. B. P. Consultants, Hubli, which was providing consultancy service in Environmental Engineering to various private organisations and was on the panel of approved consultants of the State Pollution control Board. ( 2 ) THE respondents have stoutly defended the appointment under challenge and urged that Dr. Bangeri was fully eligible for appointment and did not suffer from any disqualification prescribed under Section 6 supra. In the light of the view that I propose to take I consider it proper to deal with the alternative submission made on behalf of the petitioners first. ( 3 ) SECTION 6 of the Act prescribes the disqualifications for appointment as a member of the Board and to the extent the same is relevant for our purposes reads thus:"section 6. Disqualifications. (1) No person shall be a member of a Board, who. ( 3 ) SECTION 6 of the Act prescribes the disqualifications for appointment as a member of the Board and to the extent the same is relevant for our purposes reads thus:"section 6. Disqualifications. (1) No person shall be a member of a Board, who. (a) is, or at any time has been adjudged insolvent or has suspended payment of his debts or has compounded with his creditors; or (b) xxx xxx xxx; (c) xxx xxx xxx; (d) xxx xxx xxx; (e) xxx xxx xxx; (f) is a director or a secretary, manager or other salaried officer or employee of any company or firm having any control with the Board, or with the Government constituting the Board, or with a Local Authority in the State, or with a company or corporation owned, controlled or managed by the Government, for the carrying out of sewerage schemes or for the installation of plants for the treatment of sewage or trade effluents; or (g) XXX XXX XXX". ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the 3rd respondent was at the time of his appointment associated with M/s. B. P. Consultants which was carrying on business, as a consultant for installation of plants for treatment of sewage and/or sewerage schemes. The respondent Dr. Bangeri, has not disputed the fact that he was the proprietor of M/s. B. P. Consultants or that the said concern was dealing with pollution control systems and had its registered office at Hubli. It is also not disputed that the M/s. B. P. Consultants had been registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax and the Central Sales Tax Acts and was a duly approved Consultant of the State Pollution Control Board as is otherwise also apparent from a list of the said consultants produced by the petitioner as Annexure-E to the writ petition. According to Dr. Bangeri, he had written to the authorities under the State and Central Sales Tax Acts, to discontinue the Registration of M/s. B. P. Consultants with effect from 1-1-1995 and that as on 18th January, 1995 when he was nominated as the Chairman of the 5th respondent-Board, he was neither a Director nor a salaried officer or employee of any firm having any contract with the Board or with the Government for carrying out of sewerage schemes or for the installation of plants for the treatment of Sewage. These facts have not been refuted by the petitioners. All that was argued by Mr. Vasudev, appearing for the petitioner was that the Laboratory established by the 3rd respondent-Dr. Bangeri, was one of the consultants approved by the respondent-Pollution Control Board, which according to the learned counsel was sufficient in itself to disqualify the third respondent from the appointment either as a member of the Board or as the Chairman thereof. I, however, find no substance in this submission. A careful reading of the provisions of Section 6 (f) supra would show that in order to disqualify a person from becoming a member of the Board, it is essential that he should be a Director, a Secretary, Manager, or other salaried officer or employee of any firm having a contract with the Board or with the Government constituting the Board or with the Local Authority in the State or with a Company or a Corporation owned, or managed by the government for carrying out the sewerage schemes or for the installation of plants or the treatment of sewerage or trade effluents. What is, therefore, important is not only that the person concerned should hold a salaried or other position in any Company or Firm, but that such Company or Firm should have a subsisting contract with the Board to which the appointment is being made or with the Government constituting such Board or with any Local Authority in the State or with a Company or Corporation owned, controlled or managed by the Government for the purpose of carrying out sewerage schemes or for the installation of plants for the treatment of sewerage or treatment effluents. The petitioners have not, however, placed any material on record to show that any contract as envisaged by Section 6 (f) at any stage existed between m/s. B. P. Consultants on the one hand and the Board, Government, local Authority, Company or the Corporation referred to in Section 6 (f) on the other. In the absence of any such material the mere fact that M/s. B. P. Consultants or the laboratory of Dr. Bangeri was on the list of approved consultants of the respondent-Board would not disqualify the respondent Dr. Bangeri from appointment. I have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the challenge mounted by the petitioners to the appointment in question on that account. Bangeri was on the list of approved consultants of the respondent-Board would not disqualify the respondent Dr. Bangeri from appointment. I have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the challenge mounted by the petitioners to the appointment in question on that account. ( 5 ) THAT brings me to tne question as to whether the 3rd respondent was qualified for appointment as Chairman, keeping in view the requirements prescribed for the said post by Section 4 (2) of the Act. Section 4 (2) reads thus:"section 4 (2): A State Board shall consist of the following members namely. (a) a Chairman, being a person having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of (matter relating to Environmental protection) or a person having knowledge and experience in administering institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid, to be nominated by the State Government: (provided that the chairman may be either whole-time or part-time as the State Government may think fit;) (B) (such number of officials, not exceeding five,) to be nominated by the State Government to represent that Government; (c) (such number of persons, not exceeding five,) to be nominated by the State Government from amongst the members of the local authorities functioning within the State; (d) (such number of non-officials not exceeding three) to be nominated by the State Government to represent the interests of agriculture, fishery or industry or trade or any other interest which, in the opinion of the State Government, ought to be represented; (e) two persons to represent the companies or corporations owned, controlled or managed by the State Government, to be nominated by that Government; (f) a full-time member-secretary, possessing qualifications, knowledge and experience of scientific, engineering or management aspects of pollution control, to be appointed by the state Government)". ( 6 ) A plain reading of the provision shows that in order to be qualified for appointment as Chairman the person concerned must have special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to Environmental protection. Persons having knowledge and experience in administration of institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid, are also made eligible for appointment. In the instant case, the appointment of dr. Bangeri, is sought to be justified on the ground of his possessing special knowledge or practical experience in matters relating to Environmental protection. Persons having knowledge and experience in administration of institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid, are also made eligible for appointment. In the instant case, the appointment of dr. Bangeri, is sought to be justified on the ground of his possessing special knowledge or practical experience in matters relating to Environmental protection. It was admitted by Counsel appearing for the parties that the said respondent did not have any knowledge or experience in administering institutions dealing with matters pertaining to Environmental protection. It was also not disputed that before his appointment as Chairman of the respondent-Board, Dr. Bangeri, was working as a lecturer in Zoology in a Pre-University College at Mundgod, North kanara and had thus held no position in any institution dealing with environmental Protection so as to give him any knowledge or experience in administering such institutions. According to the Petitioners, Dr. Bangeri, had earlier made an abortive attempt to get appointed as a scientific Officer, on deputation with the Department of Ecology Environment and Forests. Having failed to secure an appointment against a much lower position, the said respondent had managed to get appointed against a much higher post in the Board only on account of his political connections, lack of the mandatory special knowledge and practical experience relating to Environmental Protection notwithstanding. ( 7 ) THE respondents have, however, tried to justify the appointment on the basis that Dr. Bangeri possessed special knowledge and practical experience in respect of matters relating to Environmental Protection. Dr. Bangeri has in particular referred to and heavily relied upon certain research papers and books authored by him, showing his specialised knowledge in respect of effect of industrial pollutants on fish life. According to the said respondent, the publications in question sufficiently establish him as an ecologist with sufficient Research experience no matter limited to the effect of industrial pollutants on fish. He has also relied upon his Post-Graduate Degree in Zoology and research on fresh water fishes, in support of his claim that he possessed the requisite special knowledge and practical experience in matters relating to Environmental protection. ( 8 ) THE crucial question that falls for consideration then is whether or not the petitioner was qualified in the context of the cases set up by the parties for appointment as Chairman of the Board by reference in particular to Section 4 (2) of the Act. ( 8 ) THE crucial question that falls for consideration then is whether or not the petitioner was qualified in the context of the cases set up by the parties for appointment as Chairman of the Board by reference in particular to Section 4 (2) of the Act. The question, in other words, is as to what should constitute special knowledge or practical experience 'in respect of matters relating to Environmental Protection'. The Act does not define the expressions 'special Knowledge' or 'practical Experience' nor is the expression "matters relating to Environmental Protection", defined. When seen in the light of the functions of the Board as set out in section 17 of the Act, matters relating to Environmental Protection would present a broad spectrum beginning with planning of comprehensive programmes for prevention, control and abatement of pollution of streams and wells and ending with laying down of standards of Sewerage and trade effluents and advising the State Government as regards the location of the Industries. The expression 'matters relating to Environmental protection' is therefore of wide amplitude taking within its sweep not only matters relating to formulation of plans and policies regarding pollution control but dissemination of information, conduct of investigation and research. Inspection of sewerage or trade effluents works and plants for the treatment of sewerage and laying down and/or modifying the effluent standards etc. Suffice it to say that in the absence of any specialised assistance know-how or expertise, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for this Court to examine the credentials of a person claiming to possess such knowledge on the basis of the research work done or the academic qualifications acquired by him. In a writ of quo warranto, the Court is primarily concerned with examining whether the person appointed to the public Office possesses the requisite qualification prescribed. It is neaessary that the Court should be in a position to authoritatively answer the question one way or the other before granting or refusing relief. Such a course may be relatively easy in cases where the statute governing the appointment prescribes conditions of eligibility for appointment in terms of academic qualifications. In any such case, all that the Court would be required to examine is whether or not the person appointed possess the requisite qualification. Such a course may be relatively easy in cases where the statute governing the appointment prescribes conditions of eligibility for appointment in terms of academic qualifications. In any such case, all that the Court would be required to examine is whether or not the person appointed possess the requisite qualification. The position, however, is different where the qualification prescribed is not by reference to any academic degree or other achievement but on the basis of special knowledge or practical experience possessed by the person appointed as in the instant case. In a case like the present the Court may have to take assistance of expert bodies while deciding whether or not the person concerned possess the requisite qualification. This difficulty appears to have been noticed even by the State Government, for it is not in dispute that after Dr. Bangeri's initial appointment as Chairman for a period of one year when the question of extension of his tenure arose, the Government, while ordering extension till further orders appointed an Expert Committee to select and recommend a suitable person for appointment as Chairman. This is apparent from Notification dated 18th March, 1996, which extended the appointment of Dr. Bangeri, until further orders and the following order passed by the Chief Minister in regard to the Constitution of an Expert Committee. "i have examined all aspects of the matter and I direct that following action to be taken in this regard: (a) Dr. K. V. Bangeri may be continued as Chairman, Karnataka state Pollution Control Board until further orders; (b) Dr. Shivalingaiah may be continued as Member Secretary until further orders; (c) To constitute an Expert Committee consisting of three members in the field to make recommendations about the appointment of Chairman and Member-Secretary. The proposal for constitution expert Committee may be put up to me alongwith terms of reference". ( 9 ) PURSUANT to the above order, the Government appointed an Expert Committee to search and recommend a panel of candidates for appointment to the post of Chairman by a Government Order No. FEE 2 EPC 94, Bangalore, dated 28th March, 1996. The order being vitally important for the disposal of this petition may be extracted in extenso:"proceedings of the Government of Karnataka sub: Constitution of an Expert Committee to recommend a panel of names for appointment to the post of Chairman, Karnataka state Pollution Control Board. ORDER no. The order being vitally important for the disposal of this petition may be extracted in extenso:"proceedings of the Government of Karnataka sub: Constitution of an Expert Committee to recommend a panel of names for appointment to the post of Chairman, Karnataka state Pollution Control Board. ORDER no. FEE 2 EPC 94, Bangalore, dated 28th March, 1996 government are pleased to constitute the following Expert committee to search and recommend a panel of candidates for appointment to the post of Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution control Board, Bangalore. ( 10 ) A perusal of the above would show that the Committee comprised two experts in the field besides the former Chairman of the Board, apart from the Development Commissioner as its Chairman and the Secretary to Government Environment and Ecology as its member-convener. The terms of reference, required the process of selection to be completed within a period of 60 days, recommending two names for the final selection by the Chief Minister out of a panel of five to be drawn up by the committee. The selection, it is apparent from Para 4 of the order, was to be made keeping in view the requirements of the relevant enactments the technical qualifications of the candidates, their professional competence and field experience and the contributions made by them in the form of research papers in Environment Science, Pollution Control and such related fields. The Committee examined the credentials of Dr. Bangeri, apart from eight others and eventually recommended three persons in the order of priority for appointment as Chairman of the board: (1) Dr. R. Venkatraman; (2) (a) Mr. B. N. Thyagraja; (b) Dr. B. Shivalingaiah. While the matter stood thus, Sri P. C. Siddanagoudar, the then Minister for Sugar, Textiles, Science and Technology, Environment and Ecology, appears to have recommended the case of Dr. Bangeri to the Chief minister for appointment as Chairman for a period of three years under section 4 (2) (a) read with Section 5 (1) of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. According to the Hon'ble Minister Dr. Bangeri, was eminently suited for the job and had been discharging his functions as Chairman quite satisfactorily. As to how the need for recommending the appointment of Dr. According to the Hon'ble Minister Dr. Bangeri, was eminently suited for the job and had been discharging his functions as Chairman quite satisfactorily. As to how the need for recommending the appointment of Dr. Bangeri, arose when the matter stood referred to the Expert Committee is not very clear from the note recorded by the minister on the file nor is it clear as to how the Minister proposed to justify the reversal of the steps already taken by the Government in the direction of identifying a suitable person for appointment as Chairman. Incidentally it was, the same Hon'ble Minister who had on his own recommended Dr. Bangeri for the first time for appointment as chairman in his letter dated 26th December, 1994, addressed by him to the Chief Minister. The communication sent by the Minister did not disclose the process by which he had picked up Dr. Bangeri, for recommending his name as Chairman. Official record in fact gives an impression as though the Minister was satisfied not only as to the eligibility of Dr. Bangeri but also his suitability to hold the post. This is apparent from the note recorded by the Hon'ble Minister in the light of the opinion tendered by the Special Secretary to the Government expressing doubts whether Dr. Bangeri, was the proper choice for appointment against an important post like the Chairman of the Pollution control Board. ( 11 ) THE English translation of the Note as furnished by Mr. Udaya Shankar, reads thus. "notings of the then Minister of Environment and Ecology (Para 8) I have considered in detail the opinion tendered by the special Secretary at paras 1 to 5. I believe that the comments made by the Special Secretary regarding qualification and other matters pertaining to Dr. K. V. Bangeri are tendentious. (erod^ezi sjpdr^) (Para 9) The qualification and experience possessed by Dr. K. V. Bangeri meets the requirements of this post in large measure (Cradss^) as Environmental Science is an 'inter-disciplinary science' and Dr. Bangeri has got expertise and also knows (gtotioi) the subject. There is no doubt about this. It is pertinent to note that previously a Mechanical Engineer was appointed to this post. Orders or the then Chief Minister be appointed for one year (probationary ). If he shows expertise (srforss) in his work, the matter be again reconsidered. Sd/- 12-11-1995 chief Minister". --- *** --- .