LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. versus KAILASH CHAND MAHAJAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.
v.
KAILASH CHAND MAHAJAN AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 20, 1992
[R. M. SAHA! AND S. MOHAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 195(}---Artic/e 136-Appeal-Whether Supreme
Court to decide a case 011 ethics-Retiremellt age of Chainna11/Member of
Electric ii) Boa1d-l'olicy-Need for legislation-Whether the Court to i11teifere.
Electricity (Supply) Act, I94&-Section 5 (6) (as ame11ded by the
Himacha' Pradesh Act JO of 1990f-''Sha/l be disqualified from bei11g ap-
pointed," "or being'~ea11ing of
E/,ctricity (Supp(v) Act, ~948-Sections 5, 8 a11d sections 14 a11d 16 of
A
B
c
the General Clauses Act-Period of appointment:-1ime tp time extension-- D
Whether amounts to re-appoilltment-Wliether section 5. (6) deals only with
initial ap pointnient.
E/,,ctricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Section ](}--Whether punitive in na-
ture-Re.1ppointment-Person removed whether eligible.
EMctricity (Supply) Act, 194&-Section 5 (6)-{as amended by the
Himachal Pradesh Act JO of I990 )-Effect of amendment-Cessation from
holding office of Chainnan!Member of the Board on attai11ing the age of 65
years whether automatic-Right to continue in office-Legitimate expecta-
tion-Legality of-Superannuation age-lntroduction--Object of
Jnrerpretation of Stan<tes-Object of legislation and legislative inten-
tion-Distinction of-'Object and Reasons' of a Bi/l-lmporta11ce of-77ie
Himac/11/ Pradesh Act, 10 of 1991J---Sections 3, 5-0bject of
E
F
C.mstin1tion of India, 1951J---Artic/e ]~Amending Act (the Himacha/ G
Pradesh Act JO of 1990) introducing the age of supera11nuatio11 affecting one
person--U11ether enactntent ultra vires.
Constin1tion of l11dia, 195(}---Article 226-Writ petitio11 challengi11g vires
of the Himacha/ Pradesh Act 10 of 199o-No11-impletion of a perso11 who
was appointed in the place of the writ-petitio11er-Effect of
H
r
n1
A
B
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1992] 1 S.C.R.
Respondent No.1, on his retirement from the post of Chief Engineer
from the State of Punjab, was appointed as a Member of Himachal
Pradesh State Electricity Board on 24.7.1981 and thereafter appointed as
Chairman of the Board for a period of two years. On 13.8.82 by a
notification the period was extended to live years, w.e.f. 25. 7.1981. bn
12.5.86, the term as Chairman was extended for another period of three
years. There was a further extension on 12.6 .. 89 for a period of 3 years.
His appointment was to continue upto 25.7.92.
Respondent No. 3, the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh was
alleged to have made speeches that should he come to power in the January
C
1990 elections he would have the respondent No. 1 removed from the
Chairmanship of the Electricity Board.
On 5.3.90, the respondent No. 3 became the Chief Minister. A
notification dated 6.3.90 was issued in supersession of the notification
dated 12.6.89 that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Chairman
D of the Electricity Board was extended from 25.7.89 to 6.3.90. Another
notification dated 6.3.90 was issued directing that one Mr. Chauhan
function as Chairman of the Electricity Board w.e.f. 7.3.90.
The respondent No. 1 preferred a writ petition challenging the
E
validity of the notification dated 6.3.90.
While the writ petition was pending, on 30.3.90, another notification
was issued terminating the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Mem-
ber of the Electricity Board.
F
On 30.3.90, the High Court while admitting the writ petition (CWP
No. 123 of 1990) ordered that no appointment to the post of Chairman of
the Electricity Board be made till further orders of the Court. When the
matter was heard on 22.5.90, the Advocate General requested the Court
that the judgment not to be pronounced since he desired to seek instruc-
G lions from the Government to reconsider its notification dated 6.3.90. On
11.6.90, the Advocate General submitted to the Court that the notifications
dated 6.3.90 and 30.3.90 would be withdrawn and an undertaking to that
effect was given. Acwrdingly the writ petition was disposed of.
-
1
....
r
.
By notification dated 11.6.90, the Government withdrew its notifica-
H
lions dated 6.3.90 and 30.3.90.
Y
- >
.,
•
STATE v. K.C. MAHAJAN
919
On 11.6.90, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent No.1 A
for having ab..sed his position as Chairman of the Electricity Board and
also ex·offici1t.Secretary, M.P.P. Power, asking him to submit his explana·
tion within zi days as to why action should not be takExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.