Full Judgment Text
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF JANUARY, 2014,
: PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
WRIT APPEAL NOs. 6742-54 OF 2013 (LB-RES)
Between:
1. Sri. B. V. Ramakrishna,
S/o. Late B.R. Venkataramaiah,
Aged about 75 years,
th
R/at. No.44, Srinidhi, 13 Main Road,
rd
R.K. Layout, 3 Stage, Padmanagara,
Bangalore-70.
Nominated Corporator Padmanabhanagara
Assembly Constituency.
2. Sri. N.G. Krishnareddy,
S/o. K. Nanjaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at. No.5(530) A-T-Street,
V.V. Puram, Bangalore-4.
Nominated Corporator Chikkapet
Assembly Constituency.
3. Sri. V. Chennagiriyappa,
S/o. Venkataramappa,
Aged about 55 years,
th
R/at. No.57, 5 Main Road,
Jai Bheema Nagar,
BTM Layout, I Stage,
Bangalore-68.
2
Nominated Corporator Jayanagar
Assembly Constituency.
4. Sri. G. GopalKrishna,
S/o. Late Gangaiah Naidu,
Aged about 57 years,
th
R/at. No.12/G, 5 Cross Road,
Girinagar I Stage, Bangalore-85.
Nominated Corporator Basavanagudi
Assembly Constituency.
5. Sri. L. Srinivas,
S/o. Linganna,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at. No.181, CBI Road,
nd th
2 Main, 9 Cross,
SGH Layout, Ganganagar,
Bangalore-78.
Nominated Corporator Hebbal
Assembly Constituency.
6. Sri. K.C. Venkatesh,
S/o. Late Chikkavenkatappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at. No.283, Sapthagiri Nivasa,
Kammagondanahalli,
th
12 Cross, Jalahalli Cross,
Bangalore-15.
Nominated Corporator Dasarahalli
Assembly Constituency.
7. Sri. D. Ramesh,
S/o. Basavaradhya,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at. No.688, Chennakeshava
Swami Temple Road,
Begur Post, Bangalore-68.
Nominated Corporator Bangalore South
Assembly Constituency.
3
8. Sri. Srinivas,
S/o. Nagappa,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at. Kalkere, Kanakadasa Road,
Bangalore-43.
Nominated Corporator K.R. Puram
Assembly Constituency.
9. Smt. Gowramma,
W/o. Venkatesh,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at. No.149/1, Akkipet Main Road,
Bangalore-53.
Nominated Corporator Assembly Constituency.
10 Sri. C. Nagaraj,
S/o. J. Channappa,
Aged about 46 years,
th
R/at. No.71, 5 Main Road,
Dommalur Layout,
Bangalore-71.
Nominated Corporator
Assembly Constituency.
11 Sri. Prakash.K,
S/o. Krishnaswamy,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at. No.1/2, Kausthuba
Vidyaranyapura
Ramachandrapura Main Road,
Bangalore-97.
Nominated Corporator
Assembly Constituency.
12 Smt. Latha Mallya,
W/o. K. Sadananda Mallya,
Aged about 57 years,
th
R/at. No.438, 7 Cross Road,
th
10 Main Road, H.B.R. Layout,
Hennur Cross, Bangalore-43.
4
Nominated Corporator
Assembly Constituency.
13 Sri. Srinivas,
S/o. M. Narayanswamy,
Aged about 41 years,
th
R/at. No.816, 4 Cross,
Chennakeshavanagara,
Chimsandra, Electronic City Post,
Bangalore-560 100.
... Appellants
(By Shri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Counsel
for Shri. Shanmukhappa, Kesvy & Co.,)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms,
Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-1.
2. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore-1.
3. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
N.R. Square, J.C. Road,
Bangalore-2,
By its Commissioner.
... Respondents
(By Shri. B. Veerappa, AGA for R1 & R2)
5
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
Nos.32823-835/2013 dated 18/11/2013.
These Writ Appeals coming on for Preliminary Hearing,
N.K. Patil J.
this day, , delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The appellants, questioning the correctness or
otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned
Single Judge, in Writ Petition Nos.32823-835/2013
th
dated 18 November 2013, have presented these writ
appeals. In the said writ petitions, the appellants
herein had sought for quashing the Notification dated
th
15 July, 2013 issued by second respondent vide
Annexure A to the writ petitions, as without authority of
law.
2. The said writ petitions were dismissed,
following the order passed by the learned Single Judge
th
dated 15 July 2013 in Writ Petition Nos.25964-
967/2013. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ
petitions by the learned Single Judge, the appellants
6
have presented these appeals seeking appropriate
reliefs, as stated above.
3. Brief facts leading upto the filing of these
appeals are, the appellants herein were the nominated
Councilors of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
st
(BBMP), Bangalore as per Notification dated 21 June
2012 bearing No.NAA AA E 373 MNY 2010 issued by
second respondent and they had been discharging their
duties as Councilors. Be that as it may, without any
justification, in view of change of Government, a
Notification came to be issued by the second respondent
th
on 15 July 2013 bearing No.NA AA EE 373 MNY 2010
vide Annexure A to the writ petitions, whereby the
membership of these appellants, who were Councilors
nominated by the Government to the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike, has been cancelled with immediate
effect, by invoking the powers conferred under Section 8
(1)(ii) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act,
1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity).
7
Being aggrieved by the said cancellation of membership,
the appellants approached the learned Single by filing
writ petitions. The said writ petitions came up before
the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge
dismissed the said writ petitions, observing that there is
no error of law apparent on the face of the said
Notification. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of writ
petitions, the appellants have presented these appeals,
seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.
4. The principal submission canvassed by learned
senior counsel appearing for appellants at the outset is
st
that, the impugned Notification dated 21 June 2012
bearing No.NA AA EE 373 MNY 2010 vide Annexure A to
the writ petitions, cannot be sustained and is liable to
vitiate at the threshold. To substantiate the said
submission, he is quick to point out and rely upon the
relevant provision of Section 8(1)(ii) of the Act, 1976,
wherein it is mentioned that the term of office of the
Councilors nominated by Government under clause (b)
8
of sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act shall, subject
to the pleasure of the Government, be five years. But,
before the expiry of five years, the membership of these
appellants as Councilors has been cancelled, without
assigning any valid reasons and therefore, the said
Notification cannot be sustained and is liable to be
vitiated, as the same is contrary to the statutory
provisions of the Act and that the order of the learned
Single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions filed by these
appellants also cannot be sustained and liable to be set
aside.
5. As against this, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, inter alia
sought to substantiate the Notification issued by the
second respondent as also the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, stating that the same are in
consonance with the statutory provisions of the Act and
the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the
9
writ petitions filed by these appellants. Therefore,
interference in the same is uncalled for.
Further, he submitted that, clause (ii) of sub-
Section (1) of Section 8 of the Act is amply clear that the
term of office of Councilors nominated by Government
shall, subject to the pleasure of the Government, be five
years. The very meaning of the said provision is that
the term of office of the Councilors would be subject to
the pleasure of the Government and can be terminated
or cancelled at any stage, according to its will and wish.
Therefore, the appeals filed by appellants are liable to be
dismissed, confirming the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
6. After careful consideration of the submission of
the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for respondents 1 and 2 and after perusal of the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and
st
also the Notification dated 21 June 2012, appointing
10
the appellants and others as Councilors and Notification
th
dated 15 July 2013 vide Annexure A to the writ
petitions, cancelling their membership, it is manifest on
the face of the same that, there is no error or material
irregularity, resulting in any miscarriage of justice,
inasmuch as the learned Single Judge is justified in
dismissing the writ petitions filed by these appellants,
placing reliance on the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.Nos.25964-967/2013 and
connected matters.
7. It is significant to note that, the learned Single
Judge in W.P.Nos.25964-967/2013 and connected
th
matters, has disposed of the said writ petitions on 15
July 2013, relying upon the ratio of law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Narain
Agarwal and others Vs. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur
and others (AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 1440) , wherein it
is held that the nominated members of a Municipal
Board fall in a different class and that therefore, they
11
cannot claim equality with the elected members.
Further, the learned Single Judge in the above referred
cases observed that, the petitioners therein have no
legally vested right to demand that they be continued as
the members of the Syndicate for fixed period of three
years as they are neither elected nor appointed, but are
only nominated and that they would hold the office so
long as the Government does not withdraw its pleasure.
It is also observed that the petitioners therein, having
accepted the earlier order or Notification nominating
them as Councilors, with their eyes wide open, cannot
turn around and say that they have a fixed term of
office of three years in the said case.
8. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned writ
petitions, after following the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, as referred supra, observed that though
the said order was passed in the context of withdrawing
nominations of members to the syndicates of the two
Universities established under the Karnataka State
12
Universities Act, 2000, the law explained therein and
quoted therein applies to the present case also and
accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. The said
reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is just and
proper and interference in the same is uncalled for.
9. Further, It is worthwhile to extract the
relevant provision of Section 8(1)(ii) of the Act, as
follows:
“ 8. Term of Office of Councillors: (1)
Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the
term of office of Councilors -
(i) directly elected at a general election
shall be five years;
(ii) nominated by the Government
under clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section
7 shall, subject to the pleasure of the
Government, be five years.”
(underlining by us)
It would also be relevant to note the exact
meaning of the word ‘pleasure’. As per Oxford English
Reference Dictionary, the word ‘pleasure’ means feeling
13
of satisfaction or joy, enjoyment or source of pleasure or
gratification. The formal meaning of the word ‘pleasure
is, a person’s will or desire.
Further, if we look at the meaning of the word
‘pleasure’ in Black’s Law Dictionary, it takes us
through the word ‘pleasure appointment’, which is
extracted as under:
“Pleasure Appointment: The
assignment of someone to employment that
can be taken away at any time with no
requirement for cause, notice or a hearing.”
In the case on hand, admittedly, the appellants
are neither directly elected at a General election nor
appointed, but are only nominated by Government by
exercising powers under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 7 of the Act, wherein it is stated in an
unambiguous manner that, the term of office of the
nominated Councilors shall, subject to the pleasure of
the Government, be five years. Which means, they can
14
be terminated or their membership cancelled at any
time, within five years, subject to the pleasure of the
Government. They are entitled to continue as long as
there is pleasure or will or desire of Government and
once the pleasure or desire is withdrawn, they are not
entitled to continue. Therefore we do not find any error
on the face of the said Notification or the order passed
by learned Single Judge.
10. Further, it is significant to note that, the
st
appellants, having accepted the Notification dated 21
June 2012, nominating them as Councilors to the
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, without any
murmur, cannot now turn around and say that the
th
Notification dated 15 July 2013 vide Annexure A to the
writ petitions, cancelling the membership of these
appellants as Councilors is bad and cannot be
sustained. If the appellants had been directly elected
at a General election, then the term of office would have
been five years, without any rider. But, since the
15
appellants are only nominated, with a rider that their
term of office is for a period of five years, subject to the
pleasure of Government, they cannot claim it as a
matter of right, but the same is at the pleasure or will of
Government. Therefore, in view of change in the
interest or will or desire of the administration, the
membership of these appellants has been cancelled by
issuing the Notification at Annexure A to the writ
petitions. The appellants cannot find fault with the
same. Therefore, the submission of the learned senior
counsel appearing for appellants cannot be accepted
nor it has got substance to substantiate the prayer
sought in the writ appeals.
11. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the
case on hand and in the light of the relevant provision
extracted above, coupled with the ratio of law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Narain Agarwal’s
case (supra), we are of the firm opinion that the
appeals filed by appellants, cannot under any
16
circumstances be entertained and are accordingly
dismissed.
12. In view of disposal of appeals, I.A.II/2013 for
stay does not survive for consideration and is
accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is
permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of
respondents 1 and 2, within four weeks from today.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
BMV*
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF JANUARY, 2014,
: PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
WRIT APPEAL NOs. 6742-54 OF 2013 (LB-RES)
Between:
1. Sri. B. V. Ramakrishna,
S/o. Late B.R. Venkataramaiah,
Aged about 75 years,
th
R/at. No.44, Srinidhi, 13 Main Road,
rd
R.K. Layout, 3 Stage, Padmanagara,
Bangalore-70.
Nominated Corporator Padmanabhanagara
Assembly Constituency.
2. Sri. N.G. Krishnareddy,
S/o. K. Nanjaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at. No.5(530) A-T-Street,
V.V. Puram, Bangalore-4.
Nominated Corporator Chikkapet
Assembly Constituency.
3. Sri. V. Chennagiriyappa,
S/o. Venkataramappa,
Aged about 55 years,
th
R/at. No.57, 5 Main Road,
Jai Bheema Nagar,
BTM Layout, I Stage,
Bangalore-68.
2
Nominated Corporator Jayanagar
Assembly Constituency.
4. Sri. G. GopalKrishna,
S/o. Late Gangaiah Naidu,
Aged about 57 years,
th
R/at. No.12/G, 5 Cross Road,
Girinagar I Stage, Bangalore-85.
Nominated Corporator Basavanagudi
Assembly Constituency.
5. Sri. L. Srinivas,
S/o. Linganna,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at. No.181, CBI Road,
nd th
2 Main, 9 Cross,
SGH Layout, Ganganagar,
Bangalore-78.
Nominated Corporator Hebbal
Assembly Constituency.
6. Sri. K.C. Venkatesh,
S/o. Late Chikkavenkatappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at. No.283, Sapthagiri Nivasa,
Kammagondanahalli,
th
12 Cross, Jalahalli Cross,
Bangalore-15.
Nominated Corporator Dasarahalli
Assembly Constituency.
7. Sri. D. Ramesh,
S/o. Basavaradhya,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at. No.688, Chennakeshava
Swami Temple Road,
Begur Post, Bangalore-68.
Nominated Corporator Bangalore South
Assembly Constituency.
3
8. Sri. Srinivas,
S/o. Nagappa,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at. Kalkere, Kanakadasa Road,
Bangalore-43.
Nominated Corporator K.R. Puram
Assembly Constituency.
9. Smt. Gowramma,
W/o. Venkatesh,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at. No.149/1, Akkipet Main Road,
Bangalore-53.
Nominated Corporator Assembly Constituency.
10 Sri. C. Nagaraj,
S/o. J. Channappa,
Aged about 46 years,
th
R/at. No.71, 5 Main Road,
Dommalur Layout,
Bangalore-71.
Nominated Corporator
Assembly Constituency.
11 Sri. Prakash.K,
S/o. Krishnaswamy,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at. No.1/2, Kausthuba
Vidyaranyapura
Ramachandrapura Main Road,
Bangalore-97.
Nominated Corporator
Assembly Constituency.
12 Smt. Latha Mallya,
W/o. K. Sadananda Mallya,
Aged about 57 years,
th
R/at. No.438, 7 Cross Road,
th
10 Main Road, H.B.R. Layout,
Hennur Cross, Bangalore-43.
4
Nominated Corporator
Assembly Constituency.
13 Sri. Srinivas,
S/o. M. Narayanswamy,
Aged about 41 years,
th
R/at. No.816, 4 Cross,
Chennakeshavanagara,
Chimsandra, Electronic City Post,
Bangalore-560 100.
... Appellants
(By Shri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Counsel
for Shri. Shanmukhappa, Kesvy & Co.,)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms,
Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-1.
2. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore-1.
3. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
N.R. Square, J.C. Road,
Bangalore-2,
By its Commissioner.
... Respondents
(By Shri. B. Veerappa, AGA for R1 & R2)
5
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
Nos.32823-835/2013 dated 18/11/2013.
These Writ Appeals coming on for Preliminary Hearing,
N.K. Patil J.
this day, , delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The appellants, questioning the correctness or
otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned
Single Judge, in Writ Petition Nos.32823-835/2013
th
dated 18 November 2013, have presented these writ
appeals. In the said writ petitions, the appellants
herein had sought for quashing the Notification dated
th
15 July, 2013 issued by second respondent vide
Annexure A to the writ petitions, as without authority of
law.
2. The said writ petitions were dismissed,
following the order passed by the learned Single Judge
th
dated 15 July 2013 in Writ Petition Nos.25964-
967/2013. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ
petitions by the learned Single Judge, the appellants
6
have presented these appeals seeking appropriate
reliefs, as stated above.
3. Brief facts leading upto the filing of these
appeals are, the appellants herein were the nominated
Councilors of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
st
(BBMP), Bangalore as per Notification dated 21 June
2012 bearing No.NAA AA E 373 MNY 2010 issued by
second respondent and they had been discharging their
duties as Councilors. Be that as it may, without any
justification, in view of change of Government, a
Notification came to be issued by the second respondent
th
on 15 July 2013 bearing No.NA AA EE 373 MNY 2010
vide Annexure A to the writ petitions, whereby the
membership of these appellants, who were Councilors
nominated by the Government to the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike, has been cancelled with immediate
effect, by invoking the powers conferred under Section 8
(1)(ii) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act,
1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity).
7
Being aggrieved by the said cancellation of membership,
the appellants approached the learned Single by filing
writ petitions. The said writ petitions came up before
the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge
dismissed the said writ petitions, observing that there is
no error of law apparent on the face of the said
Notification. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of writ
petitions, the appellants have presented these appeals,
seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.
4. The principal submission canvassed by learned
senior counsel appearing for appellants at the outset is
st
that, the impugned Notification dated 21 June 2012
bearing No.NA AA EE 373 MNY 2010 vide Annexure A to
the writ petitions, cannot be sustained and is liable to
vitiate at the threshold. To substantiate the said
submission, he is quick to point out and rely upon the
relevant provision of Section 8(1)(ii) of the Act, 1976,
wherein it is mentioned that the term of office of the
Councilors nominated by Government under clause (b)
8
of sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act shall, subject
to the pleasure of the Government, be five years. But,
before the expiry of five years, the membership of these
appellants as Councilors has been cancelled, without
assigning any valid reasons and therefore, the said
Notification cannot be sustained and is liable to be
vitiated, as the same is contrary to the statutory
provisions of the Act and that the order of the learned
Single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions filed by these
appellants also cannot be sustained and liable to be set
aside.
5. As against this, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, inter alia
sought to substantiate the Notification issued by the
second respondent as also the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, stating that the same are in
consonance with the statutory provisions of the Act and
the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the
9
writ petitions filed by these appellants. Therefore,
interference in the same is uncalled for.
Further, he submitted that, clause (ii) of sub-
Section (1) of Section 8 of the Act is amply clear that the
term of office of Councilors nominated by Government
shall, subject to the pleasure of the Government, be five
years. The very meaning of the said provision is that
the term of office of the Councilors would be subject to
the pleasure of the Government and can be terminated
or cancelled at any stage, according to its will and wish.
Therefore, the appeals filed by appellants are liable to be
dismissed, confirming the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
6. After careful consideration of the submission of
the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for respondents 1 and 2 and after perusal of the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and
st
also the Notification dated 21 June 2012, appointing
10
the appellants and others as Councilors and Notification
th
dated 15 July 2013 vide Annexure A to the writ
petitions, cancelling their membership, it is manifest on
the face of the same that, there is no error or material
irregularity, resulting in any miscarriage of justice,
inasmuch as the learned Single Judge is justified in
dismissing the writ petitions filed by these appellants,
placing reliance on the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.Nos.25964-967/2013 and
connected matters.
7. It is significant to note that, the learned Single
Judge in W.P.Nos.25964-967/2013 and connected
th
matters, has disposed of the said writ petitions on 15
July 2013, relying upon the ratio of law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Narain
Agarwal and others Vs. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur
and others (AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 1440) , wherein it
is held that the nominated members of a Municipal
Board fall in a different class and that therefore, they
11
cannot claim equality with the elected members.
Further, the learned Single Judge in the above referred
cases observed that, the petitioners therein have no
legally vested right to demand that they be continued as
the members of the Syndicate for fixed period of three
years as they are neither elected nor appointed, but are
only nominated and that they would hold the office so
long as the Government does not withdraw its pleasure.
It is also observed that the petitioners therein, having
accepted the earlier order or Notification nominating
them as Councilors, with their eyes wide open, cannot
turn around and say that they have a fixed term of
office of three years in the said case.
8. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned writ
petitions, after following the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, as referred supra, observed that though
the said order was passed in the context of withdrawing
nominations of members to the syndicates of the two
Universities established under the Karnataka State
12
Universities Act, 2000, the law explained therein and
quoted therein applies to the present case also and
accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. The said
reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is just and
proper and interference in the same is uncalled for.
9. Further, It is worthwhile to extract the
relevant provision of Section 8(1)(ii) of the Act, as
follows:
“ 8. Term of Office of Councillors: (1)
Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the
term of office of Councilors -
(i) directly elected at a general election
shall be five years;
(ii) nominated by the Government
under clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section
7 shall, subject to the pleasure of the
Government, be five years.”
(underlining by us)
It would also be relevant to note the exact
meaning of the word ‘pleasure’. As per Oxford English
Reference Dictionary, the word ‘pleasure’ means feeling
13
of satisfaction or joy, enjoyment or source of pleasure or
gratification. The formal meaning of the word ‘pleasure
is, a person’s will or desire.
Further, if we look at the meaning of the word
‘pleasure’ in Black’s Law Dictionary, it takes us
through the word ‘pleasure appointment’, which is
extracted as under:
“Pleasure Appointment: The
assignment of someone to employment that
can be taken away at any time with no
requirement for cause, notice or a hearing.”
In the case on hand, admittedly, the appellants
are neither directly elected at a General election nor
appointed, but are only nominated by Government by
exercising powers under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 7 of the Act, wherein it is stated in an
unambiguous manner that, the term of office of the
nominated Councilors shall, subject to the pleasure of
the Government, be five years. Which means, they can
14
be terminated or their membership cancelled at any
time, within five years, subject to the pleasure of the
Government. They are entitled to continue as long as
there is pleasure or will or desire of Government and
once the pleasure or desire is withdrawn, they are not
entitled to continue. Therefore we do not find any error
on the face of the said Notification or the order passed
by learned Single Judge.
10. Further, it is significant to note that, the
st
appellants, having accepted the Notification dated 21
June 2012, nominating them as Councilors to the
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, without any
murmur, cannot now turn around and say that the
th
Notification dated 15 July 2013 vide Annexure A to the
writ petitions, cancelling the membership of these
appellants as Councilors is bad and cannot be
sustained. If the appellants had been directly elected
at a General election, then the term of office would have
been five years, without any rider. But, since the
15
appellants are only nominated, with a rider that their
term of office is for a period of five years, subject to the
pleasure of Government, they cannot claim it as a
matter of right, but the same is at the pleasure or will of
Government. Therefore, in view of change in the
interest or will or desire of the administration, the
membership of these appellants has been cancelled by
issuing the Notification at Annexure A to the writ
petitions. The appellants cannot find fault with the
same. Therefore, the submission of the learned senior
counsel appearing for appellants cannot be accepted
nor it has got substance to substantiate the prayer
sought in the writ appeals.
11. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the
case on hand and in the light of the relevant provision
extracted above, coupled with the ratio of law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Narain Agarwal’s
case (supra), we are of the firm opinion that the
appeals filed by appellants, cannot under any
16
circumstances be entertained and are accordingly
dismissed.
12. In view of disposal of appeals, I.A.II/2013 for
stay does not survive for consideration and is
accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is
permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of
respondents 1 and 2, within four weeks from today.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
BMV*