HARI BANSH LAL versus SAHODAR PRASAD MAHTO AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 30-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 10 S.C.R. 561 
HARi BANSH LAL 
v. 
SAHODAR PRASAD MAHTO AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7165 of 20.10) 
AUGUST 30, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.) 
Public interest litigation: 
A 
B 
Appointment of appellant as Chairman of State c 
Electricity Board -
Challenged on the ground that 
appointment was arbitrary, and integrity of appellant was 
doubtful and he, being 90 years of age, was not capable to 
perform duties - Before the High Court, stand of the State 
Government and the Electricity Board was that the appellant D 
had rendered excellent service in the Board and received 
appreciation - High Court held the appointment as not only 
arbitrary but also contemptuous -
While quashing the 
appointment, the High Court relied upon the note of the Chief 
Secretary to the Chief Minister which stated that the appellant 
E 
was suspended earlier and a raid was also conducted and that 
his integrity was doubtful - On appeal, held: It was unfair on 
the part of the Chief Secretary to prepare such a note - For 
this, the appellant had sworn an affidavit denying the raid by 
any department - Regarding the order of suspension of the 
appellant, proceedings of the Government clearly showed that 
F 
the State Government itself revoked the punishment -
The 
appointment of appellant was not contrary to the statutory rules 
- Also there was no age limit prescribed for the appointment 
of a Chairman of the Board under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 
1948 - In such circumstances, the conclusion by High Court 
G 
in this regard was erroneous, contrary to the record of 
proceedings placed before it and, therefore, liable to be set 
aside - The appellant is entitled to continue as Chairman of 
561 
H 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
· A the Board - Service law - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 -
s.5(5) - Bihar State Electricity Board Rules, 1960 - r.4. 
Maintainability of PIL in service matters - Held: Except 
for a writ of quo warranto, PIL is not maintainable in service 
8 
matters - Service law - Writ. 
c 
Writ: 
Writ of quo warranto - Held: Lies only when appointment 
is contrary to a statutory provision - Service law. 
Administrative law: 
Administrative authority - Appointment to a post -
Suitability or otherwise of a candidate for appointment to a 
post is a function of the appointing authority and not of the 
D court unless the appointment is contrary to statutory 
provisions/rules - Service law. 
Plea: 
Change in stand -
State Government taking before 
E Supreme Court a stand different from the one taken by it 
before the High Court - Held: It is impermissible for the State 
to take a different view in the absence of any change of 
circumstances. 
F 
Respondent no.1, claiming himself to be a vidyut 
shramik leader, filed a Public Interest Litigation before the 
High Court challenging the appointment of the appellant 
as Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board on the 
ground that the appellant aged about 90 years was a 
G person of doubtful integrity and his appointment as the 
Chairman was without following the rules or procedure. 
Various allegations were made in the writ petition against 
the appellant regarding the shortfall in generation, 
transmission and supply of electricity and regarding 
H incapacity of the appellant to perform his duties as 
HARi BANSH LAL v. SAHODAR PRASAD MAHTO 
563 
AND ORS. 
Chairman due to his age. The prayer was· made for 
A 
removal of the appellant. The counter affidavits, filed by 
the State Government, State Electricity Board as well as 
the appellant denying all the averments, were to the effect 
that the appellant had rendered excellent service in the 
Board and received appreciation and there was no age s 
limit prescribed for the appointment of a Member or 
Chairman of the Board under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 
1948, and the appointment of the appellant was made 
after obtaining vigilance clearance. The High Court held 
that appointment of the appellant as Chairman of the c 
Board was not only arbitrary but also contemptuous. 
While quashing the appointment, the High Court relied 
upon an earlier note of the Chief Secretary addressed to 
the Chief Minister wherein he had objected to th& 
appointment of the appellant on the ground that the 
D 
appellant was suspended earlier and a raid was also 
conducted and that his integrity was doubtful. The said 
order was challenged by the appellant by fliing the 
instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.