Petitioners appointed as Vice President and Members of the Chhattisgarh State Animal Welfare Board were removed mid-term by an order based on a general circular, without reasons or hearing. The Court held the removal violated Clause 5.6 of the 22.03.2016 notification, quashed the removal order and allowed them to serve their full tenure.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 7
2025:CGHC:54420
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 04.11.2025
Order Delivered on 07.11.2025.
Order Uploaded on 07. 11.2025
WPC No. 4835 of 2024
1 - Alok Chandrakar S/o. Shri Bharatlal Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o. Shri Bharatleela Mention, Collectorate Road, In Front Of S.B.I. Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.)
2 - Madan Mohan Khandelwal S/o. Shri Purshottam Das Aged About 82 Years R/o. Rudri Road, Vindhyawasini Ward, Ward No. 32, Dhamtari, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.)
3 - Narayan Khandeliya, S/o. Shri Dwarika Prasad Khandeliya Aged About 62 Years R/o. Hanuman Mandir Gali, Mahantpara, Ward No. 2, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
4 - Daneshwar Sahu S/o. Shri Bhauram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o. Parasboad, Barhapur, Durg, Tahsil And Distt. Durg (C.G.)
5 - Madan Lal Dewangan S/o. Shri Jivrakhan Lal Dewangan Aged About 67 Years R/o. MIG (S) - 42, Phase-2, Behind NCC Office, Kabir Nagar, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.07 17:33:40 +0530
versus
2 / 7
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Livestock Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Under Secretary Department Of Livestock Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, C.G. State Animal Welfare Board, Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Tekchandani, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
CAV Order
“ 10.1 A writ and/or an order to set aside the impugned orders dated 15.12.2023 & 19.12.2023 (Annexure P/1 & P/2), by issuing suitable writ, order, etc. as by virtue of which the petitioners were stopped from performing their duties as Vice President and Members of the Board.
10.2. A writ and /or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to perform their function as the Vice President, Members of the Board, as per the mandate of the Court.
10.3. Award the Cost of petition to the petitioners.
10.4. Any other order/orders, direction/directions or relief (s) thought just and fit in the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners. ”
3 / 7
4 / 7
basis. Appointment was made at the discretion of Government without any selection process and, therefore, appointment is one under the pleasure of State Government. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that period of the Board to be 5 years from the date of reconstitution/notification is not correct. It is also submitted that it is not clear as to under what provision of law petitioners were appointed as Vice President and Members of the Board and, therefore, the Members/Vice President like petitioners can hold the office till pleasure of Government. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no opportunity has been afforded before removing them from their office is also not sustainable as there is no requirement of law to issue notice providing opportunity of hearing before removing Members of the Board who have been appointed without selection process. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mahadev & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sovan Devi & Ors. [2022 LivLaw (SC) 730 ].
5 / 7
6 / 7
after giving him reasonable opportunity of showing cause against proposed removal and any vacancy caused by such removal shall be treated as casual vacancy for the purpose of Clause 5.4. Petitioners were not served with show cause notice nor provided any opportunity of hearing before passing order Annexure P-1 removing them from their office prior to completion of their tenure of five years. It is not the case of respondents-State that petitioners were removed from their office assigning any reason therein but from Annexure P-1. It appears that action in general is taken only on the ground that State Government has taken a decision to remove the persons who have been appointed/nominated politically. The said action, in the opinion of this Court, will not be the ground for removing Members who have been nominated by the State Government to be a Members of Board, according to the Notification, which specifies the period of their tenure. Once the petitioners are appointed, exigency of removal prior to completion of tenure should have been in accordance with Clause 5.6 of the Notification dated 22nd March 2016 issued by the State Government which provides removal only after giving opportunity of hearing.
7 / 7
rule of law. In a nineteenth century feudal set-up unfettered power and discretion of the Crown was not an alien concept. However, in a democracy governed by rule of law, where arbitrariness in any form is eschewed, no Government or authority has the right to do what it pleases. The doctrine of pleasure does not mean a licence to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically. It is presumed that discretionary powers conferred in absolute and unfettered terms on any public authority will necessarily and obviously be exercised reasonably and for the public good. "
Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Praveen
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State could remove the petitioners as Vice President and Members of the Board before completion of their five-year tenure without reasons or opportunity of hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Padma Chandrakar & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.Relied on¶2
WPC 408 of 1999
State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Vs. Smt. Padma Chandrakar & OrsRelied on¶2
Writ Appeal No.375 of 2019
Mahadev & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sovan Devi & Ors.Referred¶3
[2022 LivLaw (SC) 730]
B.P. Singhal Vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶10
(2010) 6 SCC 331 · Who else cites this
Saji D. Anand Vs. State of KeralaRelied on¶10
(2016 SCC OnLine Ker. 21468) · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Alok Chandrakar
Madan Mohan Khandelwal
Narayan Khandeliya
Daneshwar Sahu
Madan Lal Dewangan
State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Livestock Development
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
