Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 826 (AP)

Chilkapati Rajeev v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-07-24

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2024
ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- "To issue such appropriate writ, order or direction more so particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings of 1st respondent dated 07.06.2024 in UO Note No.2460863/Poll.A/A2/2024-1 and the consequential Proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 13.06.2024 in Memo ROC No.0345/Establishment-C, Proceeding of the 4th respondent dated 14.06.2024 in Memo Roc.No.2088/T5- EC/2024, Notice of the 5th respondent dated 25.06.2024/1- 7/2024 and the Letters No.30/2024 dated 02.07.2024 of the 6th respondent addressed to petitioners 1 & 5 as not only arbitrary, illegal but also in violation of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequentially set aside the same and pass such other orders…." 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were nominated as members of the 6th respondent-society along with others by the 5th respondent-District Collector on 21.12.2023, vide Ex.P4. Thereafter, the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry passed an order dated 27.12.2023 appointing an Election Officer for conducting elections to the Executive Committee of the 6th respondent, i.e., the District Live Stock Development Association, Gannavaram, and the 6th respondent issued notification dated 28.12.2023 for conducting election to the Executive Committee fixing the date of election on 04.01.2024. 3. While so, one K.Nagendra Kumar, who was Ex-Chairman of the 6th respondent filed Writ Petition No.4 of 2024 challenging the proceedings of the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry dated 27.12.2023 appointing an Election Officer and this Court, vide interim order dated 03.01.2024, has directed the respondents to proceed with the election, but, however, declaration of the result shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. The Executive Committee of the 6th respondent has elected the 1st petitioner as President and in view of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.4 of 2024, the authorities have not declared the result. 4. Meanwhile, in view of the change of the Government, the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 07.06.2024 in UO Note No.2460863/Poll.A/A2/2024-1, instructed all the Special Chief Secretaries/Principal Secretaries/Secretaries to Government to take immediate action to obtain and accept resignations of the appointments made to nominated posts, viz., Chairpersons, Directors, Members, etc., to the Corporations, Boards, Academies and other Autonomous Organizations under their administrative control and report compliance to the said Department. The said proceedings are issued by the 1st respondent dated 07.06.2024. The said proceedings are issued by the 1st respondent dated 07.06.2024. The 3rd respondent issued consequential order dated 13.06.2024 in Memo Roc.No.0345/Establishment-C dated 13.06.2024, directing the 2nd respondent and others to take immediate action to obtain and accept the resignation of the appointments made to nominated posts. The 4th respondent issued notice dated 14.06.2024 and the 5th respondent issued notice on 25.06.2024/01.07.2024 and the 6th respondent notice dated 02.07.2024 for compliance of the said orders of the 1st and 3rd respondents stated above. Basing upon the notices issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5, the 6th respondent is putting pressure on the petitioners to voluntarily submit their resignations and threatening with dire consequences, if resignations are not submitted as insisted. 5. The said UO Note No.2460863/Poll.A/A2/2024-1, dated 07.06.2024 and the consequential notices are assailed in this Writ Petition on the ground that the action of the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice, illegal and arbitrary and without authority of law being contrary to the procedure established under the rules and regulations of the 6th respondent. It is further contended that once the election has been conducted, they cannot be treated as nominated members and the Election Officer was appointed on 27.11.2023 for conducting elections to the Executive Committee and, accordingly, the Election Officer issued notification on 28.12.2023 fixing the date of election as 04.01.2024 and the election was conducted to the Executive Committee of the 6th respondent on 04.01.2024. In view of the orders of this Court, they have not declared the result. Simply because there is a change in the Government, the respondents 1, 3 to 5 cannot be issued the impugned proceedings to submit the resignations. 6. In view of the orders of this Court, they have not declared the result. Simply because there is a change in the Government, the respondents 1, 3 to 5 cannot be issued the impugned proceedings to submit the resignations. 6. It is asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that as per Rule 4 of the Rules and Regulations of the 6th respondent-society, except Chairman, District Cooperative Milk Union, Chairman, District Cattle Breeder Association, President of Zilla Mahila Samakya, who are by default the members of the General Body out of 33 members, remaining 30 members will be nominated by the District Collector and the election would be held for electing 14 members out of 30 members nominated by the Collector and the elected 14 members along with the Chairman, District Cooperative Milk Union, Chairman, District Cattle, Breeders Association and President of Zilla Mahila Samakya in total 17 members constitute the Executive Committee of the 6th respondent-society and out of them President will be elected. 7. In the written instructions, it is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued UO Note No.2460863/Poll.A/A2/2024-1, dated 07.06.2024, directing the District Collector in the State to seek resignation from the persons nominated in the Corporations, Boards, Academies and other Autonomous Organizations and accept those resignations and in consequence to the request made by the District Collectors in some of the nominated in some of the District Livestock Development Associations submitted their resignations and some approached the High Court for suspension of the UO Note referred supra and the District Livestock Development Association, Gannavaram, Krishna District, consists of 28 members in its General Body, who are nominated by the District Collector and 18 members out of 28 members submitted their resignations in accordance with the request made by the District Collector and these resignations were accepted and the members nominated into the General Body by the District Collector were not elected by the eligible citizens of the country in manner similar to that of general elections conducted for Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council or the Upper or Lower Houses of Indian Parliament and the District Livestock Development Association (DLDA) cannot claim to be elected members on par with other elections conducted in democracy as there are no real members in the DLDA to elect them. The DLDA is not connected with common public directly whom the DLDA intends to benefit and there are no members, no memberships, no involvement of public money or no direct benefits offered to common public in the form of subsidies or grants like other societies and the Executive Committee of a DLDA is concerned only with improving the delivery of reproduction services implemented in the District through central schemes and taking few policy decisions pertaining to day-to-day expenditure at a DLDA. 8. The written instructions that runs expositions that the members of the General Body, who elect the Executive Committee are in fact nominated by the District Collectors and one of the nominated member gets elected as an Executive Committee Member, who, in turn, become the Chairman of the DLDA and the DLDA is based on nominated members and once such nominated member submits resignation to his membership such member seizes to claim the provisions of all such positions and offices held by him either as an Executive Committee Member or as a Chairman of DLDA automatically, inter alia, it is agitating that none of the members were elected by the general public democratic manner. Therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has every right to seek resignations of the nominated members in DLDA or APLDA. Hence, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 07.06.2024 is liable to be set aside or not? 10. Therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has every right to seek resignations of the nominated members in DLDA or APLDA. Hence, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 07.06.2024 is liable to be set aside or not? 10. When a specific question is posed to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that what is the substantive question involved in the present Writ Petition and what is the vested right of the petitioners in the Writ Petition, there is no such answer from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and he would submit that the 6th respondent-society is registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, and the Collector who nominate the members of the general body of the society and once he nominates, he becomes functus officio and he has no power to ask for registration and the bylaws totally govern the situation and the Election Officer was appointed as per the by-laws and election notification was issued and elections were conducted but the result has not been declared in view of the orders passed in W.P.No.4 of 2024, wherein this Court by way of interim direction, ordered that the declaration of the result shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. And in view of the by-laws, the Collector has no power to seek resignation and hence, prays to set aside the impugned UO Note issued by the 1st respondent dated 07.06.2024. 11. Therefore, question which falls for consideration is that whether the term of the nominated members could have been curtailed by means of the impugned order. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Narain Agarwal And Ors. Etc v. Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur And Ors, (1993) 2 SCC 242 , wherein the question arose as to whether nominated members have right to continue, irrespective of the fact that their nomination has been cancelled by the State Government. In the said case, it was held that nominated Members constitute separate class, therefore, removal or induction is based on political considerations. It was also held that nominated Members are also not entitled to any pre-removal hearing in compliance of the principles of natural justice and their removal could not put any stigma on the performance or their character. In the said case, it was held that nominated Members constitute separate class, therefore, removal or induction is based on political considerations. It was also held that nominated Members are also not entitled to any pre-removal hearing in compliance of the principles of natural justice and their removal could not put any stigma on the performance or their character. In paragraph-11 of the said judgment, it has been held as under:- "11................The right to seek an election or to be elected or nominated to a statutory body, depends and arises under a statute. The initial nomination of the two women members itself depended on the pleasure and subjective satisfaction of the State Government. If such appointments made initially by nomination are based on political considerations, there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the Legislature authorised the State Government to terminate such appointment at its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place. The nominated members do not have the will or authority of any residents of the Municipal Board behind them as may be present in the case of an elected member. In case of an elected member, the legislature has provided the grounds in Section 40 of the Act under which the members could be removed. But so far as the nominated members are concerned, the Legislature in its wisdom has provided that they shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government. It has not been argued from the side of the respondents that the Legislature had no such power to legislate the fourth proviso. The attack is based on Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution." 13. Following the judgment of Om Narain Agarwal’s case (1 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna S/o Bulaji Borate v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors, (2001) 2 SCC 441 , held as follows: "The initial nomination of the two women members itself depend on the pleasure and subjective satisfaction of the State Government. If such appointments made initially by nomination are based on political considerations, there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the legislature authorised the State Government to terminate such appointment at its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place. If such appointments made initially by nomination are based on political considerations, there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the legislature authorised the State Government to terminate such appointment at its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place. The nominated members do not have the will or authority to any residents of the Municipal Board behind them as may be present in the case of an elected member......But so far as the nominated members are concerned, the legislature in its wisdom has provided that they shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government. It has not been argued from the side of the respondents that the legislature had no such power to legislate the fourth proviso. The attack is based on Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. In our view, such provision neither offends any Article of the Constitution nor the same is against any public policy or democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution. There is also no question of any violation of principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity to the nominated members before their removal nor the removal under the pleasure doctrine contained in the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members. It is done purely on political considerations." 14. Power of nomination has been given to the State Government and once the power of nomination has been given, then power of removal is exercisable by the State Government on the basis of doctrine of pleasure and nominated Members enjoy their office during the pleasure of the Government. 15. Section 16 of General Clauses Act, even it envisages that which is reproduced hereunder: Sec 16 : Power to appoint to include power to suspend or dismiss.—Where, by any [Central Act] or Regulation, a power to make any appointment is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, the authority having [for the time being] power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed [whether by itself or any other authority] in exercise of that power. 16. Even in the General Clauses Act, right to appoint includes right to terminate. Once the State Government has nominated the Members, the State Government has right to cancel their nomination. 17. 16. Even in the General Clauses Act, right to appoint includes right to terminate. Once the State Government has nominated the Members, the State Government has right to cancel their nomination. 17. In this the above quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Narain Agarwal v. Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur (1 supra), applies that the right of nominated members is governed by the statute and not Constitution. 18. According to the quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court nominated members are not entitled for any notice as their removal depends on pleasure of the government which is based on political consideration. Their removal does not put any stigma on their performance or character. 19. Once doctrine of pleasure is applicable neither the principles of natural justice would step in nor any question of giving an opportunity before removal would arise. Relevant judgment in this regard is Krishna v. State of Maharashtra’s case (2 supra). 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana, (2017) 1 SCC 283 , held that in matters of nominated posts where removal or termination is without any allegations and without attaching any stigma, principles of natural justice are not applicable. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-quoted judgments, it has been categorically held that once doctrine of pleasure is applicable, neither the principle of natural justice would step in nor any question of giving an opportunity before removal would arise. If appointments are based on political considerations, there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution if the Legislature allows the State Government to terminate these appointments at its discretion and designate new members to replace them. In the light of the doctrine of pleasure, there would be no violation of natural justice by not giving the nominated members an opportunity before their removal. As far as nominated posts are concerned, the Legislature in its wisdom has provided that they shall hold office during the pleasure of the government. 22. In the light of the doctrine of pleasure, there would be no violation of natural justice by not giving the nominated members an opportunity before their removal. As far as nominated posts are concerned, the Legislature in its wisdom has provided that they shall hold office during the pleasure of the government. 22. I have given my anxious consideration to the argument of the learned counsel for the respective parties and I find that there is no illegality in the action of the State Government and Article 14 of the Constitution of India has no application as the State Government was having power to cancel the nomination of the petitioners and opportunity of hearing was not required at all in such situation. 23. The Writ Petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association, which shall be within two (02) weeks from today. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.