“14. It appears that the petitioner was only a nominated member of the Market Committee, Raikot (Ludhiana), whereas in the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ram Dial and others AIR 1965 SC 1518 the appellants, who had been removed by a notification, were elected members of the municipality, and they had been removed on the ground of a resolution passed by outgoing members of the committee belonging to a different political party, who had lost their seats to the appellants in elections. Moreover, the provisions of Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipalities Act No. 3 of 1911 had given unfettered discretion to the Government to remove elected representatives/ members of municipal committees without any notice to them, and/or without a right of hearing which, on the contrary, was envisaged under Section 16, a parallel provision, of the same Act which also provided for removal of a member of municipal committee in public interest. As regards the Amendment Act No. 5 of 2007 impugned herein which has superseded all the market committees with nominated members in the State, it does not seem to carry an element of mala fide, inasmuch as, it has been passed to supersede all such committees in the State and not any individual market committee. Further, provisions of Section 35 of the Act, which have been heavily relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, are to apply in individual cases, on the ground of incompetency. An order passed in exercise of powers under Section 35 would essentially be stigmatic in nature and, therefore, before passing any such order, it may require granting an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person. The Act in question has been passed by the legislature by exercising powers within its legislative competence and in no manner, it casts any stigma like the one in-built in the grounds under Section 35 of the Act. Moreover, we are also not inclined to accept the submission of learned senior counsel that the doctrine of pleasure would not apply if the statute provides for specific term of the office. This submission was also urged before Hon'ble the Apex Court which could not find favour vide the judgment (Om Narain Aggarwal and Ors v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur and Ors.) [1993]2SCR34. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants are contained in para 9 of the judgment as under (Para 8 of AIR):
