Andhra Pradesh High Court Overturns Removal Of Livestock Body's Nominated Member, Says Collector Had No Express Power

Referring to the facts of the case, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati in its order said:

“…while the byelaws did envisage nomination by the Collector to the General Body of the Society, there was no power specifically envisaged as per the byelaws which could authorize the Collector to curtail the tenure prematurely of such nominated members. While there is no doubt that the initial nomination of the petitioner was based on political considerations, yet for purposes of invoking the pleasure doctrine, there ought to have been a specific power vested in the Collector to terminate such an appointment, in the absence whereof, the said doctrine, in our opinion, could not have been invoked to justify the issuance of the order impugned in the writ petition.”

"In the present case, in the absence of there being any specific power vested with the Government to remove a nominated Member which can be otherwise traced to a statute and in the absence of any such specific power being traced to the Government in terms of the byelaws, in our opinion, the Government could not have issued directions seeking the resignation or removal of the nominated members," the court added. 

Facts:

The High Court was dealing with a Writ Appeal challenging the order dated 25.07.2024 where the Single Judge had dismissed the appellant's plea challenging her removal from the Membership of District Livestock Development Association, Ongole, Prakasam District (Respondent 4).

The appellant was elected as the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Respondent 4 Association, and claimed that she was entitled to assume the post for a period of five years with effect from 04.09.2023 to 03.09.2028. However, vide proceedings dated 15.06.2024, she was asked to submit her resignation from the Membership of Respondent 4 Association by the District Collector, Prakasam District. It was the case of the appellant that the District Collector lacked the requisite power to seek resignation of the appellant as the bye-laws governing the nomination did not vest any power in the District Collector to cancel or withdraw the nomination so made to the General Body of the Society.

When the proceedings were challenged before the High Court, the Single Judge had invoked the Doctrine of Pleasure and held that since the appointment of the appellant was based on political considerations and since the removal did not carry with it any stigma on the performance or character of the appellant, principles of natural justice were not applicable and that the State Government would terminate the appointment at its discretion and designate new members to replace the earlier members. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the Writ Appeal.

The appellant submitted that the single judge's order had not correctly understood the Doctrine of Pleasure. Additionally, it was argued that there existed no provisions under any law or bye-law which authorised the Collector to seek removal by way of resignation.

On the other hand, the respondent authorities stated that since the nomination by the Collector was neither made under any Statute or Act and was merely made to a general body of a society, therefore, the Doctrine of Pleasure could certainly be attracted.

Thus, the Court was to determine whether the respondents, on account of change of Government, were justified in invoking the Doctrine of Pleasure.

Findings:

Noting that there was no vested power in the hands of the Collector to demand resignation from the appellant, the Court held,

The Court relied on Om Narain Agarwal and others v. Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur and others [(1993) 2 SCC 242], where the Supreme Court held that appointments made on political considerations do not violate any provisions of the Constitution, in case the legislature authorises the State Government to terminate such appointment at its pleasure and nominate new members in their place. The court said that these cases were not applicable to the present case, observing that in this case there were specific provisions either envisaging expressly that the nomination would be at the pleasure of the Government, or an express provision to remove a nominated member like in Krishna vs. State of Maharashtra and others.  

"In our opinion, the view expressed by the learned single Judge invoking the Doctrine of Pleasure by placing reliance upon the judgments (supra) is unsustainable as the reference was inapt in the facts and circumstances of the case," it added. 

The bench thus allowed the appeal. 

Case Title: Kosuri Radha Vs. The State of AP and others

Click Here To Read/Download Order