1 / 7 2025:CGHC:54420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 04.11.2025 Order Delivered on 07.11.2025. Order Uploaded on 07. 11.2025 WPC No. 4835 of 2024 1 - Alok Chandrakar S/o. Shri Bharatlal Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o. Shri Bharatleela Mention, Collectorate Road, In Front Of S.B.I. Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Madan Mohan Khandelwal S/o. Shri Purshottam Das Aged About 82 Years R/o. Rudri Road, Vindhyawasini Ward, Ward No. 32, Dhamtari, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Narayan Khandeliya, S/o. Shri Dwarika Prasad Khandeliya Aged About 62 Years R/o. Hanuman Mandir Gali, Mahantpara, Ward No. 2, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Daneshwar Sahu S/o. Shri Bhauram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o. Parasboad, Barhapur, Durg, Tahsil And Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5 - Madan Lal Dewangan S/o. Shri Jivrakhan Lal Dewangan Aged About 67 Years R/o. MIG (S) - 42, Phase-2, Behind NCC Office, Kabir Nagar, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.07 17:33:40 +0530 2 / 7 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Livestock Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Livestock Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, C.G. State Animal Welfare Board, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Tekchandani, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Order 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 A writ and/or an order to set aside the impugned orders dated 15.12.2023 & 19.12.2023 (Annexure P/1 & P/2), by issuing suitable writ, order, etc. as by virtue of which the petitioners were stopped from performing their duties as Vice President and Members of the Board. 10.2. A writ and /or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to perform their function as the Vice President, Members of the Board, as per the mandate of the Court. 10.3. Award the Cost of petition to the petitioners. 10.4. Any other order/orders, direction/directions or relief (s) thought just and fit in the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners.” 3 / 7 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were appointed as Vice President and Members of Chhattisgarh State Animal Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") vide order dated 09.11.2022 (Annexure P-3). Appointment was made by the concerned Department in the name of Governor. According to Notification dated 22nd March 2016, term of Board is of 5 years. In support of his contention, he referred to Clause 4 (B) and Clause 5.1 of the Notification dated 22nd March 2016. Constitution of the Board is under Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1960") and Notification is having statutory effect. Respondent No.1 had issued an order Annexure P-1 dated 15.12.2023 removing Members from their office without assigning any reason, before completion of period of five years from the date of re-constitution of the Board and, therefore, it is per se illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decisions in case of WPC 408 of 1999 (Smt. Padma Chandrakar & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors) decided on 02.05.2019 and decision of Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.375 of 2019 (State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Vs. Smt. Padma Chandrakar & Ors) decided on 15.10.2019. 3. Learned counsel for respondents- State opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that Chhattisgarh State Animal Welfare Board is a Society registered under the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act, 1973. Chhattisgarh State Animal Welfare Board is neither a statutory nor mandated by any provision of Constitution. Appointment of the petitioner is not having any statutory 4 / 7 basis. Appointment was made at the discretion of Government without any selection process and, therefore, appointment is one under the pleasure of State Government. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that period of the Board to be 5 years from the date of re- constitution/notification is not correct. It is also submitted that it is not clear as to under what provision of law petitioners were appointed as Vice President and Members of the Board and, therefore, the Members/Vice President like petitioners can hold the office till pleasure of Government. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no opportunity has been afforded before removing them from their office is also not sustainable as there is no requirement of law to issue notice providing opportunity of hearing before removing Members of the Board who have been appointed without selection process. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mahadev & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sovan Devi & Ors. [2022 LivLaw (SC) 730 ]. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed along with writ petition as also reply. 5. Perusal of order Annexure P-1 would show that in the order, no reason has been assigned for removing the persons/petitioners named therein from their office but for referring the Circular issued by the State Government bearing No.2270/1883/2023/One/6 dated 15.12.2023. Relevant portion of Circular is extracted below for ready reference: “2/- य न ग प 2270/1883/2023/ए /6, न 15.12.2023 पपलन य न एतn~ उत गई नय !तय त" ल #त त $%।" 5 / 7 6. The Circular which is formed basis for passing of order Annexure P-1 is a general Circular issued to all the Departments of State Government directing them to remove all the persons appointed/nominated by the Government with immediate effect. From contents of order Annexure P- 1, it is appearing that there is no specific reason for removing the petitioners. 7. Chhattisgarh State Animal Welfare Board is constituted by State of Chhattisgarh under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1960 in compliance of the order dated 06.08.2008 of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Constitution of the Board is notified in gazette notification published on 30th March 2016. Clause 4-B of the Notification provides for Re-constitution of the Board and under Clause 4.1 the term of Board is prescribed as 5 years from the date of Notification. Clause 4.3 further provides that the Board as re-constituted under clause 4.2 shall be re-constituted from time to time on expiration of every fifth year, from the date of re-constitution. Clause 5 talks of terms of office and conditions of service of Members of Board and Clause 5.1 clearly specifies that term of office shall be 5 years from the date of re-constitution and the Chairman and other Members of Board as so re-constituted shall hold office till expiry of term for which Board has been re-constituted. 8. Aforementioned Clauses as forming part of Notification of constitution of Board would show that there shall be Board and the term of Board to be 5 years and it is to be re-constituted after every five years. 9. Further Clause 5.6 provides that State Government may, at any time, remove for reasons to be recorded in writing, a Member from the office 6 / 7 after giving him reasonable opportunity of showing cause against proposed removal and any vacancy caused by such removal shall be treated as casual vacancy for the purpose of Clause 5.4. Petitioners were not served with show cause notice nor provided any opportunity of hearing before passing order Annexure P-1 removing them from their office prior to completion of their tenure of five years. It is not the case of respondents-State that petitioners were removed from their office assigning any reason therein but from Annexure P-1. It appears that action in general is taken only on the ground that State Government has taken a decision to remove the persons who have been appointed/nominated politically. The said action, in the opinion of this Court, will not be the ground for removing Members who have been nominated by the State Government to be a Members of Board, according to the Notification, which specifies the period of their tenure. Once the petitioners are appointed, exigency of removal prior to completion of tenure should have been in accordance with Clause 5.6 of the Notification dated 22nd March 2016 issued by the State Government which provides removal only after giving opportunity of hearing. 10.The doctrine of pleasure was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.P. Singhal Vs. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331 relying upon in case of Saji D. Anand Vs. State of Kerala (2016 SCC OnLine Ker. 21468). Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering removal of Governor has observed thus: "22. There is a distinction between the doctrine of pleasure as it existed in a feudal set-up and the doctrine of pleasure in a democracy governed by the 7 / 7 rule of law. In a nineteenth century feudal set-up unfettered power and discretion of the Crown was not an alien concept. However, in a democracy governed by rule of law, where arbitrariness in any form is eschewed, no Government or authority has the right to do what it pleases. The doctrine of pleasure does not mean a licence to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically. It is presumed that discretionary powers conferred in absolute and unfettered terms on any public authority will necessarily and obviously be exercised reasonably and for the public good." 11. When notification issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1960 governing appointment and removal, then removal can only be according to clauses as mentioned in Notification. State is bound by the Rules and Laws and Notification issued/published under the Act or statutory Rules. 12.In view of above discussions, order Annexure P-1 with reference to petitioners is not sustainable, accordingly, it is quashed. Petitioners shall be entitled to hold their respective office under Section 4-B of the Notification dated 22nd March 2016 issued by the State Government under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1960 till completion of their tenure and shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs. 13.Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen