STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. versus CHANDAM MANIHAR SINGH

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 23-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
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. SING

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