STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.versusCHANDAM MANIHAR SINGH

                  STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.                                  A
                             v.
                   CHANDAM MANIHAR SINGH

                         SEPTEMBER 23, 1999

             [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]                            B

    · Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Ac~ 1974:

       Ss. 4, 5(1), (3), (4), (6), 6(1) and (2)-State Pollution Control
Board-Constitution and reconstitution of-Term of office of members of C
Board including Chairman-Determination of-Resignation of Chairman of
Board-Nomination of respondent as Chairman to fill up casual vacan-
cy-Subsequent removal from office-High Court setting aside removal and
directing to continue respondent for full term of three years from the date of
nomination-Validity of-Held, persons nominated to fill up casual vacancy,
entitled to hold office only for the remainder of term of original mem- D
ber-High Court not justified in holding that respondent entitled to hold office·
for three year~Service Law.                                                        .. ''
    S. 4(1) and (3)-State Pollution Control Board-Nomination ofa new
member of Board-Reconstitution of entire Board-Necessity of. .               E
       Pursuant to a Government Notification dated 5.5.1995, appellant
State in exercise of its powers under S. 4 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, reconstituted the State Pollution Control
Board. Various officers including Chairman of the Board were nominated.
Under S. 5(1) of the Act, the Chairman of the Board was entitled to hold      F
office for a period of three years from the date of his appointment and
for a further period till his successor was appointed. Respondent was
appointed as Chairman of the Board on 16.10.1996 to fill up the vacancy
occurred on the resignation of the erstwhile Chairman. However, respon-
dent was removed from office by an Order dated 19.10.1998 after issuing      G
a show cause notice. On challenge, High Court while setting aside the
order of removal held that respondent was entitled to continue in office
for a period of three years from the date of his appointment. Hence t~e
present appeal.

      On behalf of the appellant it was contended that in view of S. 5(6)    H
                                   191
    192                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   of the Act, High Court was not justified in directing the appellants to
    continue the respondent as Chairman upto 15.10.1999 on the supposition
    that clear three years' time was available to him for continuing as Chair-
    man.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
B
           HELD : 1.1. High Court was not justified in holding that respondent
    is entitled to continue in office for a period of three years from the date
    of his appointment. [199-A-B]

C          l.2. S. 5(1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
    1974, lays down that the term of office of a member of the Board, including
    Chairman would be three years from the date of nomination. He would also
    be entitled to continue to hold office beyond the permitted time till his
    successor enters upon his office. However, S. 5(6) of the Act lays down that
    a casual vacancy in a Board shall be filled by a fresh nomination and the
D   person nominated to fill the vacancy shall hold office only for the remainder
    of the term for which the member in whose place he was nominated was to
    hold his office. Casual vacancy in a Board may arise due to removal of any
    member by the Central Government or State Government, resignation of
    any member of the Board or due to disqualification of a member under S.
E   6(1) of the Act. [196-G; 197-A-B; G]

           1.3. In the instnat case, the earlier Chairman was nominated on
    5.5.1995 and his regular term of office was to expire on 4.5.1998. In the
    meantime, because of his resignation causal vacancy of Chairman occurred
    and the said vacancy was filled up by nomination ofthe respondent. There-
F   fore, unexpired term of his tenure as substituted nominee Chairman would
    have continued only upto 4.5.1998 or till his successor was appointed to
    hold that office. Thus, High Court erred in holding that the tenure of the
    respondent as Chairman could have gone beyond 4.5.1998 or that there was
    no vacancy of Chairman from that date till expiry of 3 years from the date
G   of nomination of the respondent as Chairman. However, the order of this
    Court will have no effect on final orders of High Court because respondent
    has less than a month to continue as Chairman and has no intention to
    continue beyond that period. [198-B-C; 199-B-CJ

          2. It is not necessary for the State Government to reconstitute the
H entire Board every time when new members are inducted or new Chairman
                   STATE v. C. M. SINGH [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.]                   193

     is inducted. In fact, sub-section (3) of S. 4 of the Act lays down that every   A
     State Board shall be a body corporate with the name specified by the
     State Government in the notification under sub-section (1), having per-
     petual succession and a common seal. [198-F -GI

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Apeal No. 5561 of
     ~                                                                               B

          From the Judgment and Order dated 10.6.99 of the Gauhati High
     Court in W.A. No. 63 of 1999.

           Raju Ramachandran and K. Nobin Singh for the Appellants.
                                                                                     c
           Ashok Kumar Singh and Ms. Sultana Sanawar for the Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted.
                                                                                     D
           We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

            Learned senior counsel for the appellants made two-fold grievances
     in this appeal. In order to appreciate those grievances it would be necessary
     to note a few relevant facts. ·                                                 E
            The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
     (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was adopted by the Legislative
     Assembly, State of Manipur in pursuance to Clause (1) .of Article 252 of
     the Constitution of India by its resolution no. 36 in its sitting held on
     28.12.1987. As the Central Act was adopted and became applicable to the
                                                                                  F
     State of Manipur, the appellant No. 1 State of Manipur under Section 4 of
     the Act became empowered to constitute State Pollution Control Board
     (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board'). In exercise of its powers
     under Section 4 of the Act, the appellant No. 1-State Government by
     various notifications constituted/reconstituted the Board from time to time. G
     What is relevant for the present purpose is the reconstitution of the Board
     by Government Notification dated 5.5.1995. Pursuant to the said

--   notification, the Governor of Manipur reconstituted the Board as per
     Section 4 of the Act nominating various members including the Chairman
     who was the then Hon'ble Minister (STE), Manipur. The said Chairman H
                                                                                   '
    194                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A became entitled to hold his Office for three years from the date of his
  nomination as laid down by Section 5(1) of the Act. He of course could
  continue to hold Office as Chairman even after expiry of the period of
  three years till his successor entered upon his Office. The said Chairman
  resigned on 10.7.1996. Thereupon, the present respondent was appointed
B as Chairman of the Board to fill up the vacancy caused on the resignation
  of the erstwhile Chairman. The said order of nomination in favour of
  respondent was dated 16.10.1996. The said nomination was until further
  orders. It appears that thereafter the Board was reconstituted in exercise
  of the powers under Section 4 of the Act by the Governor of Manipur by
  notification dated 26.5.1997 and in that reconstituted Board the respondent
c was shown as Chairman and the reconstituted Board was to continue until
  further orders. Then followed another order of the Governor, Manipur
  dated 28.10.1997 which recited that in supercession of the previous order
  issued and pursuant to sub-section (9) of Section 5 and sub-section (1) of
  Section 12 of the Act read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Manipur
D Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1991, respondent's
  Office of Chairman was restricted for a period of three years from the date
   of his initial nomination i.e. from 16.10.1996 it was to continue 'up to
   15.10.1999. We may also mention that in the meantime the Board was
   reconstituted by further notification dated 8.12.1997 under Section 4 of the
E Act wherein the respondent was shown as the Chairman and he was to
   continue until further orders. After the aforesaid order dated 28.10.1997
   read with further notification dated 8.12.1997 respondent's tenure as
   Chairman met with rough weather. Some allegations were made against
   him while functioning as Chairman invoking his disqualification alleging
F that he had abused his position as Member so as to render his continuance
   as the Chairman of the Board detrimental to the interest of the general
   public as provided under Section 6(1)(g) of the Act.

          It may be stated at this stage that the Chairman is also considered
    to be a Member of the_ Board as laid down by sub-section (2) of Section 4
G   of the Act which reads as follows :

                "(2) A State Board shall consist of the following members,
             namely:
                                                                                  --
H                (a) a chairman.........."
              STATE v. C. M. SINGH [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.]                 195

       Pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the respondent and after   A
considering his reply, the Governor of Manipur in exercise of the powers
under Section 5(3) read with Section 6(1)(g) of the Act by order dated
19.10.1998 directed that the respondent be removed from Office as Chair-
man of the Board. The respondent thereafter carried matter in a writ
petition before the High Court of Assam, Imphal Bench. A learned Single
Judge who heard his writ petition was pleased to allow the same on            B
30.4.1999. It may be noted that the leaned Single Judge had directed that
the respondent shall continue to hold his Office as Chairman as his removal
was being set aside and his tenure will end on 15.10.1999 counting three
years from 16.10.1996 when he was appointed as Chairman of the Board
pursuant to the earlier referred orders. The appellants carried the matter
in appeal before the Division Bench and having failed to convince the         c
appellate Court on the merits of their appeal, they are before us in the
present appeal.

      Learned senior counsel for the appellants raised two contention in
support of this appeal, (i) that when the Court held that the respondent D
was given reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him as
mentioned in the show cause notice, the Court could not have sat as Court
of appeal and could not have decided on merits and ought not to have held
that the respondent was not guilty of any abuse of power as reasonable
opportunity as required under Section 5(3) read with Section 6(2) was
made available to him, and (ii) in any case, learned Single Judge was in E
error in directing the appellants to continue the respondent as Chairman
up to 15.10.1999 on the supposition that clear three years' time was
available to him for continuing as Chairman even if not removed from the
Office in the meantime as if the term of 3 years was to run from the date
of his order of nomination dated 16.10.1996. Learned senior counsel for
the appellants in this connection heavily relied upon Section 5(6) of the F
Act.

        Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted
that pursuant to the order of High Court respondent is already continuiiig
as sitting Chairman of the Board and his tenure is almost coming to an end G
and he does not intend to continue as Chairman beyond 15.10.1999 and
therefore, the first contention canvassed by learned senior counsel for the
appellants on the merits of the controversy has almost become academic·
as no interim relief was granted by this Court against the order of the High
Court nor any interim relief was granted pending appeal against the order
of learned Single Judge by the Division Bench of the High Court. ·           H
    196                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A         So far as the s~cond contention is concerned, it was submitted by
    learned counsel for the respondent that pursuant to the reconstitution of
    the Board by order of the Governor of Manipur dated 26.5.1997, the
    respondent would have been entitled to continue even for three years from
    26.5.1997 as laid down by Section 5(1) ofthe Act but as there was a later
    order of the Governor dated 28.10.1997 his tenure could extend to a period
B   of three years from his initial nomination i.e. 16.10.1996 as clearly laid down
    by that order. The respondent does not intend to continue beyond
    15.10.1999 as directed by the High Court and against which direction the
    respondent has not thought it fit to file any cross-appeal.

c         Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions, we
    find that ~s the High Court's direction in favour of the respondent's tenure
    which is to expire on 15.10.1999 has almost worked itself out and less than
    a month remains for him to act as Chairman of the Board, the first
    grievance raised by learned senior counsel for the appellants in connection
D   with the removal of the respondent by order dated 19.10.1998 has become
    of academic interest. We therefore, did not permit learned senior counsel
    for the appellants to canvass this point any further before us. That takes
    us to the consideration of the second point.

          Section 5(1) of the Act lay down as follows :
E
                "5. Tenns and conditions of service of members : (1) Save as
             otherwise provided by or under this Act, a member of a Board,
             other than a member-secretary, shall hold office for a term of three
             years from the date of his nomination :

F                Provided that a member shall, notwithstanding the expiration
             of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon
             his office."

           It is therefore, obvious that the term of Office of a member of the
    Board which would include the Chairman as already noted earlier, as laid
G   down by Section 4(2)(a) of the Act, would be three years from the date of
    his nomination. He would also be entitled to continue to hold Office
    beyond· the permitted time till his successor enters upon his Office. How-
    ever, if this provision would have stood by itself, the respondent would have
    been entitled to hold office effectively for a period of three years from the
H   date, when he was nominated on 16.10.1996 as the Chairman. He would
                  STATE v. C. M, SINGH [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.]                    197

    have been then entitled to continue up to 15.10.1999 as Chairman and the         A
    vacancy of Chairman could not have arisen prior to that date. Consequent-
    ly, there would have been no occasion for the State Government to resort
    to filling up of that vacancy earlier. However, sub-section (6) of Section 5
    becomes relevant at this stage. It lays down that a casual vacancy in a Board
    shall be filled by a fresh nomination and the person nominated to fill the
    vacancy shall hold office only for the remainder of the term for which the
                                                                                     B
    member in whose place he was nominated was to hold his office. We may
    also in this con~ection, refer to sub-sections (3) and (4) of Sectibn 5 which
    read thus :

               "(3) The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State         C
            Government may, if it thinks fit, remove any member of a Board
            before the expiry of his term of office, after giving him a reasonable
            opportunity of showing cause against the same.

               (4) A member of a Board, other than the member- secretary,
            may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand ad-          D
'           dressed -



f               (a) in the case of the Chairman, to the Central Government or,
            as the case may be, the State Government, and

                (b) in any other case, to the Chairman of the Board;                 E

            and the seat of the Chairman or such other member shall there-
            upon become vacant."

           It is obvious that if such removal takes place as per Section 5(3) the
                                                                                    F
    vacancy arising out of such termination cannot be anything but casual
    vacancy depending upon such a contingency. Another instance of casual
    vacancy is furnished by the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 5 which
    deal with the resignation of the members of the Board, other than the
    member-secretary. If a member including Chairman resigns before his term
    is over, the seat of the Chairman or such other member thereupon shall G
    become vacant. But that apart, Section 6(1) deals with disqualification of
    sitting members of the Board. If such disqualification is found to have been
    incurred by any member under sub-section (1) then under sub-section (2)
    of Section 6 after giving him reasonable opportunity he can be removed
    from his Office prior to the expiry of usual term of his office of three years. H
    198                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A That would be a third instance of casual vacancy. When such casual
  vacancies occur, sub-section (6) of Section 5 would start operating and if
  another member is nominated to fill up that vacancy, then his term of
  Office would be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the member
  in whose place he steps in by nomination. In the facts of the present case,
B it is easy to visualise that as the earlier chairman resigned on 10.7.1996 and
  he was nominated as chairman on 5.5.1995, his regular term of Office
  would have expired on 4.5.1998. In the meantime, because of his resigna-
  tion, casual vacancy of Chairman occurred and the said vacancy was filled
  up by nomination of the respondent on 16.10.1996. Therefore, unexpired
  term of his tenure as substituted nominee Chairman would have continued
C only up to 4.5.1998. On that day, by the thrust of sub-section (6) of Section
  5, vacancy of the Chairman could be said to have occurred and till that
  vacancy was filled up in accordance with law by the State authorities, the
  respondent could have continued to hold Office beyond 4.5.1998 till his
  successor was available to hold that Office. It is of course true that in the
D meantime the appellants themselves thought that the respondent was liable
  to be removed from office and passed order on 19.10.1998. That appeared
  to have been on the assumption that the successor was not available to take
  charge from the respondent. Be that as it may, so far as the impugned
  direction of the High Court is concerned and to which exception is taken
E by learned senior counsel for the appellants, it is to be stated on the correct
  interpretation of relevant provisions of the Act as mentioned .ear.lier, that     ...
  in case of any casual vacancy of any member of the Board duly constituted
  under Section 4, the successor nominee who fills up such vacancy will have
  only unexpired period of Office available in the light of the initial appoint-
  ment of the original incumbent member vice whom he walks in to fill up
F the vacancy. It may also be noted that it appears that whenever there is a
  vacancy which is filled up, the State authorities seem to be reconstituting
   the entire Board every time when new members are inducted or new
   Chairman is inducted. In fact, sub-section (3) of Section 4 does not seem
   to have been kept in view as it lays down that every State Board shall be
G a body corporate with the name specified by the State Government in the
   notification under sub-section (1), having perpetual succession and a com-
   mon seal. Under these circumstances, even though the State Government
   has authority to reconstitute the Board from time to time only because
   some casual vacancy occurred, it may not strictly be necessary for the
H authorities to undertake the exercise of reconstituting the entire Board nor
              STATE v. C. M. SINGH [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.]                  199

c0uld the sa:id reconstitution be directed to continue until further orders,   A
as the tenure of the members of the reconstituted Board also win be
governed by sub-section (1) of Section 4. It must therefore, be held while
accepting the second contention of the learned senior counsel for the
appellant that the High Court with respect, was in error in taking the view
that the ternure of the respondent as Chairman could have gone beyond
                                                                               B
4.5.1998 or that there was no vacancy of Chairman from that date till expiry
of 3 years from the date of nomination of the respondent as Chairman.
However, the aforesaid conclusion of ours will have no effect on the· final
orders passed by the High Court in favour of the respondent as the
respondent has only less than a month to continue as the Chairman of the
Board and as fairly stated by his counsel he does not intend to continue       C
beyond that date .. Consequently, after 15.10.1999 it will be open to the
appellant- authorities to fill up the vacancy of the Chairman in accordance
with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

S.V.K.                                                     Appeal allowed.