JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification, contained in Memo No. 1437 dated 16th March, 2007 (Annexure-11), issued by the Respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board') with immediate effect, before expiry of the term of the office. In this case, the petitioner has raised several points for consideration before this Court.

3. It has been stated that the petitioner has been removed from his post on the ground that his continuation as Chairman of the Board is not in the public interest. The reason assigned for the same is that pendency of criminal-cases against him is affecting the image as well as functioning of the Board.

4. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner earlier was sought to be removed from the post of Chairman of the Board by Memo No. 5299 dated 3rd November, 2006, which was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 6370 of 2006 before this Court. By order dated 5th January, 2007 passed in the said writ petition, the said order of removal dated 3rd November, 2006 was quashed by this Court. This Court, infer alia, observed that once a Member of the Board is appointed by the state Government, it has no authority, whatsoever, to remove him prior to expiry of the tenure of three years without giving him a reasonable opportunity of hearing/showing cause. Learned Counsel submitted that in the said order, specific finding was recorded by this Court that the petitioner does not suffer disqualifications under Clause (c) or (d) of Section 6 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). It has been submitted that the petitioner cannot be removed by a cryptic order on the ground that his continuation as Chairman of the Board is contrary to public interest and affect the image as well as functioning of the Board without disclosing the reason as to how the continuation of the petitioner as Chairman of the Board is contrary to public interest only because of pendency of the criminal cases, though there are instances that the persons against whom criminal cases are pending have been appointed as Cabinet Ministers in the same Government. The removal of the petitioner is political-victimisation, as he was appointed by the previous government.

5. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Government has no arbitrary power or pleasure to remove the Member or Chairman of the Board before expiry of the term of his office under the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act, under which purported power has been exercised by the Government. In this context and also in view of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, reported in (1991) 1 S.C.C. 212 (Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.); and (2004) 2 S.C.C. 447 (Mangilal v. State of M.P.), it has been stated that where right and interest of a person is likely to be affected by the order, the principle of natural justice must be read into the provision, as the application of natural justice shall be presumed unless found excluded by express words of statute. Learned Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner's removal has once been found illegal and contrary to the provision of Section 6 of the Act, he cannot be removed on the same ground under Section 5(3) of the Act. The impugned order amounts to circumventing the order of this Court in colourable exercise of power under Section 5(3) of the Act. A ground which is found to be bad and illegal under Section 6 of the Act cannot be legal and valid ground for removal of the petitioner under Section 5(3) of the Act, as both the provisions are to be read in harmony and not in isolation, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed by this Court.

6. Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, refuted the petitioner's allegation and contended, inter alia, that the State Government has ample power to reduce the term of the office of the Member or Chairman of the Board even before completion of his term and the only requirement of the provision contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act is that the removal of such Member shall be made only after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing/showing cause against the same. Learned Counsel submitted that in compliance of the said order, the respondents have issued notice to show cause to the petitioner and after receipt of the petitioner's explanation/reply and after due consideration thereof, impugned decision has been taken by the Government in the public interest and the petitioner has been removed from the post of Chairman of the Board. It has been further contended that earlier the order of removal was issued under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, which was quashed by this Court by order dated 5th January, 2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6370 of 2006 on the ground that the said order of removal was issued without giving the petitioner any notice to show cause. But in the said order itself, liberty was given to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. It has been stated that the petitioner's continuation in the office is not in the public interest in view of the pendency of criminal cases against him and the same also affects the image as well as functioning of the Board and as such, his removal is in the public interest and contrary allegations of the petitioner are wholly unfounded.

7. Learned Advocate General further submitted that this Court is not an appellate forum and cannot go into the correctness or incorrectness of the government's order unless there is illegality and mala fide in the decisional process. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was given show cause notice in accordance with the provision of Section 5(3) of the Act and his reply was considered. Personal hearing is neither provided nor contemplated in the said provision and as-such the petitioner cannot claim for an opportunity of hearing or cannot complain violation of the principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on decisions of the Supreme Court, reported in (2000) 9 S.C.C. 359 (State of U.P. and Anr. v. Nand Kumar Agrawal) and (2001) 2 S.C.C. 441 (Krishna S/o Bulaji Borate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.).

8. From the facts pleaded and rival contentions made by the parties, several important issues like- construction and interpretation of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, validity and legality of the order in the light of earlier order of this Court, scope and extent and manner of power to be exercised to reduce the term of the office of a Member/Chairman under the said provision, interpretation of extent of requirement of principle of natural justice i.e. right of opportunity of hearing, scope of review of the opportunity made under the provision in reference to the political change in the government, require elaborate hearing, consideration and determination by this Court and this case cannot be disposed of summarily at the admission stage.

9. This writ petition is, thus, admitted for hearing.

10. Since the respondents have already appeared, no further notice need be issued. However, the respondents are at liberty to file additional counter affidavit to supplement the facts or bring the materials on record, if so required, after admission.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer for stay of the impugned order is refused.

12. The parties are at liberty to move before appropriate Bench for fixing an early date of hearing.

I.A. No. 1031 of 2007

13. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate General that the copy of this interlocutory application has been served today itself and in that view, he had no occasion to go through the same and is not in position to reply.

14. In view thereof, ten days' time is allowed to seek instructions and file counter affidavit, if necessary, to this interlocutory application.