Quashed

Ajay Vijayrao Gavane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC2 Dec 2020WP/3988/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench quashed notifications cancelling the nomination of agriculturalists to the Executive Council of a University. The court held that the orders were arbitrary as they failed to state reasons for cancellation, relying on prior precedents regarding the 'doctrine of pleasure' and statutory limitations on removing nominees.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notifications qua petitioners quashed and set aside; rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B).

Ajay Vijayrao Gavane and Others Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 903-WP-3988-2020.J

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3988 OF 2020

¶4

Ajay Vijayrao Gavane,

¶5

Age-39 years,

¶6

Occupation – Agriculture,

¶7

R/o – Gavane Road, Parbhani

¶8

Limbaji Dnyanobarao Bhosle,

¶9

Age-50 years,

¶10

Occupation – Agriculture,

¶11

R/o – Shirkalas, post – Shirkalas,

¶12

Tq. Purna, District – Parbhani.

¶13

Balaji Ramrao Desai,

¶14

Age-59 years,

¶15

Occupation – Agriculture,

¶16

R/o – Chudawa,

¶17

Tq. Purna, District – Parbhani.

¶18

Sharad Sakharam Hiwale,

¶19

Age-45 years,

¶20

Occupation – Agriculture,

¶21

R/o – Ramdasnagar, Karegaon Road,

¶22

District – Parbhani. ...Petitioners

¶23

Versus

¶24

The State of Maharashtra Through

¶25

The Secretary,

¶26

Department of Agriculture, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Madam Kama Marg, Mantralaya, Maharashtra State,

¶27

Mumbai – 400 032.

¶28

Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Agricultural University, At Parbhani, (referred henceforth as VNMAU, through the Vice Chancellor.

¶29

Maharashtra Council of Agricultural Education and Research, R/o : 132/13 Bhamburda, Bhosale Nagar, Pune 411 007. ...Respondents

¶30

2 903-WP-3988-2020.J

¶31

Mr Milind Patil, Advocate for Petitioners Mr P.S. Patil, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No. 1/State Mr M.N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 Mr S.K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No. 3

¶32

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶33

DATE : 2^nd DECEMBER, 2020

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶35

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for respective parties taken up for final hearing.

¶36

The petitioners are nominated on the Executive Council of respondent No. 2 – University under notifications dated 09.09.2019, 25.06.2018, 11.07.2018 and 10.08.2018 respectively. The appointments were until further orders or for a period of three years, whichever is earlier.

¶37

The similar issue was dealt with by this Bench in Writ Petition No. 802 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 1168 of 2015 the said writ petitions are decided by a common judgment dated 21.07.2016, to which one of us (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) was a party. In the said judgment it is observed thus :

¶38

“11. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that, if, ‘doctrine of pleasure’ is applied the same was unbridled power to remove the person who has been nominated but

¶39

3 903-WP-3988-2020.J

¶40

then, the said power is to be prescribed by the Statute. In the present case, the Statute nowhere give right to the Government to remove the members nominated as its pleasure. The only provision dealing with the ceasession of the membership even of a nominated members is section 61 of the statute. Only two contingencies are provided therein i.e. the member may resign or he is convicted by a competent court for an offence involving moral turpitude save and except the same there is no other provision dealing with the ceasession of membership of a nominated member to the Executive Council.

¶41

Even if, it is assumed that the State has exercised its powers and has acted at its pleasure still even applicability of the said doctrine has not been properly resorted to by the Respondent in as much as no cause is spelt out in the orders cancelling the nominations of the Petitioners. The orders do not state the reason nor the affidavit states that the cause existed for cancelling the nominations of the Petitioners the Government cannot act arbitrarily. The orders do not whisper about the cause, the same is not reflected even by the circumstances nor by the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents.

¶42

As this court in Writ Petition No. 2949/2015 vide order dated 6.5.2016 had observed that, even while invoking the doctrine of pleasure it is imperative that cause must exist in absence thereof the orders cancelling the nominations are bad in law.”

¶43

4 903-WP-3988-2020.J

¶44

In the present matter also, the similar provisions are involved. The orders do not state the reason for cancelling the nominations of the petitioners.

¶45

In light of the above, the impugned notifications, qua the petitioners are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). No costs.

¶46

[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶47

mta

Ajay Vijayrao Gavane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Vijayrao Gavane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiva Trust Pratibhatai Pawar College of Pharmacy Vs the Pharmacy Council of India

Shiva Trusts Rajeshbhaiyya Tope College of Pharmacy Vs the Pharmacy Council of India

Nagoan Education Societys Gangamai Institue of Pharmacy Nagaon Vs the Pharmacy Council of India through Its Registrar

Sanjay Kalu Patkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Kalu Patkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Kedu Birari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others