Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 155 (MAN)

Laishram Radhakishore Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-08-11

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Impugning the proceedings dated 14.7.2022 issued by the Additional Secretary (Forest, Environment and Climate Change), Government of Manipur, alleging it to be in violation of Section 5(3) and 6(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Rule 2(iii)(b) of the Rules framed by the Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department, Manipur as per the notification dated 8.7.2021, the present writ petition has been filed. A direction has also been sought on the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation preferred by the petitioner on 12.4.2022. 2. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Manipur Pollution Control Board by an order dated 24.3.2017 as per Section 4(2)(a) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. During the currency of the tenure of the petitioner, Rules were framed under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1982 pursuant to the judgment and order dated 22.9.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.1359 of 2017 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein a specific direction was given to all the States/ Union Territories to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules for appointment of Chairman and Member Secretary of the State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees. Thus, the Rules for the Appointment of Chairman of Manipur Pollution Control Board 2021 were framed. Consequent to the framing of the aforesaid Rules, the Manipur Pollution Control Board has been reconstituted by an order dated 30.7.2021 consisting of Eleven Members, including the petitioner as Chairman of the said reconstituted Board, under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 3. The petitioner, apprehending removal from the present post of Chairman, Manipur Pollution Control Board, preferred two representations - one to the Hon'ble Minister, Manipur and the other to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur on 12.4.2022, requesting them to permit him to continue in the said post for a period of three years with effect from 30.7.2021 to 30.7.2024 in terms of the notification dated 8.7.2021 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest and Environment), Government of Manipur. According to the petitioner, the said representations are still pending consideration. 4. It is averred that by the order dated 14.7.2022, the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest, Environment and Climate Change), Government of Manipur, appointed Dr. According to the petitioner, the said representations are still pending consideration. 4. It is averred that by the order dated 14.7.2022, the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest, Environment and Climate Change), Government of Manipur, appointed Dr. Usham Deben Singh, MLA the private respondent herein as the Chairman of the Manipur Pollution Control Board. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Mr. N. Jotendro, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order dated 14.7.2022 was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to show cause as contemplated under Sections 5(3) and 6(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 6. The next plank of the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari and others, (2018) 11 SCC 734 , the Rules in question have been framed by all the State Governments, including the State of Manipur, and thereupon the Board was reconstituted on 30.7.2021 and the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to continue in the said post for three years in view of the notification dated 8.7.2021. 7. It is further submitted that private respondent appointed by the impugned order does not possess the requisite qualification, whereas the petitioner has rich experience as an environmentalist and his services received accolades from all corners. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the services of the petitioner should not be terminated in the midst of his tenure. 8. Mr. Lenin Hijam, Learned Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that the tenure of the petitioner should be reckoned from the original date of his appointment, i.e., 24.3.2017, and if that is taken to be the crucial date for calculating the period of three years, the petitioner has worked for a period exceeding the statutory period and, therefore, the order dated 14.7.2022 does not call for any interference. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the documents available on record. 10. A bare perusal of the documents available on record shows that the petitioner was nominated as the Chairman of the Manipur Pollution Control Board vide order dated 24.3.2017 with immediate effect and until further orders. 11. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the documents available on record. 10. A bare perusal of the documents available on record shows that the petitioner was nominated as the Chairman of the Manipur Pollution Control Board vide order dated 24.3.2017 with immediate effect and until further orders. 11. While the petitioner was discharging his functions, the Governor of Manipur, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 64(2)(e) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, in consultation with the Manipur Pollution Control Board, framed the Rules called 'The Appointment of Chairman of Manipur Pollution Control Board 2021'. As per Rule 2(iii)(b) of the said Rules, the term of office is as under: '2. Appointment of Chairman: (i) and (ii) ... (iii) The terms and conditions for appointment to the post of Chairman shall be as follows: (b) Method of Appointment 3 (three) years from the date of nomination. Provided that notwithstanding the expiration of the term a person appointed as Chairman, shall continue to hold Office until his successor enters upon his office. 12. Consequent to the framing of the aforesaid Rules, the Governor of Manipur, in supersession of all previous orders/notification issued in this regard and in pursuance of Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, passed an order dated 30.7.2021, reconstituting the Manipur Pollution Control Board with eleven Members, with the petitioner as the Chairman. What needs to be highlighted is that the said order has been passed 'in supersession of all previous orders/notification issued in this regard and in pursuance of Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.' Based on the aforesaid words used in the order dated 30.7.2021, the petitioner claims that his tenure is to be reckoned for a further period of three years from 30.7.2021, as per Rule 2(iii)(b) of the Rules which stipulates the tenure to be of three years from the date of nomination. 13. Firstly, let us consider the argument of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner qua the violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating his service, which is in glaring contravention of Sections 5(3) and 6(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 14. 13. Firstly, let us consider the argument of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner qua the violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating his service, which is in glaring contravention of Sections 5(3) and 6(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 14. At this juncture, for better appreciation of the issue, it is apposite to refer to Sections 5(3) and 6(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which read thus: '5. Terms and conditions of service of members.- (1) and (2) ... (3) The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may, if it thinks fit, remove any member of a Board before the expiry of his term of office, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same.' 6. Disqualifications.- (1) ... (2) No order of removal shall be made by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, under this section unless the member concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same.' 15. The terms and conditions of service of members postulate that if any member of a Board is removed before expiry of the term of his office, it shall be after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same. Likewise, the disqualification provision, referred supra, mandates that no order of removal shall be made unless the member concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same. 16. Thus, it is to be noted that adherence to the principles of natural justice is mandated under Sections 5(3) and 6(2) of the Act. As per Section 5 of the Act, removal is permissible without any stigma, but by affording an opportunity of showing cause against the action. However, even in case of removal under Section 6 of the Act, which is with stigma, principles of natural justice are also required to be observed. Therefore, in either case, adherence to principles of natural justice is mandatory. 17. The State Government is empowered to constitute the Board and appoint its Chairman and Members under Section 4 of the Act. However, even in case of removal under Section 6 of the Act, which is with stigma, principles of natural justice are also required to be observed. Therefore, in either case, adherence to principles of natural justice is mandatory. 17. The State Government is empowered to constitute the Board and appoint its Chairman and Members under Section 4 of the Act. It is the admitted case of the respondent-authority that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order, rather it is the case of the petitioner that he has been removed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 18. In the case on hand, admittedly, the order dated 30.7.2021 reconstituting the Board has been passed in supersession of all previous orders/notification issued in this regard and in pursuance of Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Rule 2(iii)(b) stipulates that the term of office is three years from the date of nomination. If the petitioner is to be removed from the said post or is disqualified on any count, then necessarily the petitioner ought to have been given a show cause notice and only after adhering to the principles of natural justice an order appointing the private respondent should have been passed. 19. A Chairman is included in the Board constituted under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, reference to members of Board under Section 5 of the Act, includes reference to the Chairman. As a matter of fact, Sub-section (3) speaks of removal before the expiry of the statutory tenure. Hence, an order in terms of Section 5, curtailing the tenure of office of a member of the Board is, in fact, removal envisaged under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act. Such a removal is permissible only after observance of the principles of natural justice, to wit, after giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause. 20. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. 21. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. 21. From the discussion aforesaid, it is apparent that the order impugned of removal of the petitioner, irrespective of the fact whether it is an order under Section 5 or under Section 6 the Act is not sustainable having been passed in contravention of the mandatory requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 or Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. The order impugned, thus, is liable to be quashed. 22. In view of the detailed discussions, a) this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.7.2022 is hereby quashed, in the light of the above observations. b) the State Government is at liberty to reconsider the case of the petitioner, if they are so advised, by following the due procedure of law contemplated under Section 5(3) or under Section 6(2) of the Act. c) there will be no order as to costs.