WRIT APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2016

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI WRIT APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2016 1. Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes, Dudhnoi Sub- Division, Dudhnoi, District-Goalpara, Represented by its Chairman, Smti Manjita Rabha 2. Smti Manjita Rabha, Chairman, Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes, Dudhnoi Sub-Division, resident of Village Karancha Kona, PO Damra, PS Dudhnoi, District: Goalpara Assam 3. Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes, Rangia Sub- Division, Rangia, District-Kamrup (R), Represented by its Chairman, Sri Pradip Kumar Baro. 4. Sri Pradip Kumar Baro, Chairman, Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes, Rangia Sub-Division, resident of village Jaljali, PO Dwarkuchi, PS Rangia, District : Kamrup (R), Assam 5. Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes, Mangaldoi Sub- Division, Mangaldoi, District-Darrang, Represented by its Chairman, Sri Dharmendra Boro 6. Sri Dharmendra Boro, Chairman, Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes, Mangaldoi Sub-Division, resident of village Batabari, PO Dalgaon, PS Dalgaon, District Darrang, Assam 7. Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes, Hojai Sub- Division, Hojai, District-Hojai, Represented by its Chairman, Sri Ramen Sing Timung. 8. Sri Ramen Sing Timung, Chairman, Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes, Hojai Sub-Division, resident of village Milik Basti, PO Nandapur, PS Hojai, District: Hojai, Assam Page 1 of 19

9. Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes, Bongaigaon Sub- Division, Bongaigaon, District Bangaigaon, represented by its Chairman, Sri Samir Boro 10. Sri Samir Boro, Chairman, Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes, Bangaigaon Sub-Division, resident of village Bakhara Para, PO: Bongaigaon, PS Bongaigaon, District :Bongaigaon, Assam RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department, Assam. 2. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 3. The Director of Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department, Assam, Dispur, Guwahti-06 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, District - Goalpara, Assam 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (R), District Kamrup(R), Assam 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, District-Darrang, Assam 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, District Hojai, Assam 8. The Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon, District-Bongaigaon, Assam WRIT APPEAL NO. 420 OF 2016 1. The Nagaon Sub-Divisional SC Development Board, Nagaon, represented by its Chairman, namely, Deep Das. 2. Sri Deep Das, S/O Late Dilip Das, resident of village Raidongia PO Aibheti, PS Jajori, District: Nagaon PIN-782002 (representing the appellant No.1, as its Chairman) Page 2 of 19

RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Guwahati- 6. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. WRIT APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2016 1. Project Implementation Committee, Integrated Tribal Development Project Board, District- Goalpara, represented by its Chairman, Sri Laxmi Kant Daimary. 2. Sri Laxmi Kant Daimary, Chairman, Project Implementation Committee, Integrated Tribal Development Project Board, District- Goalpara, resident of village Lela, PO Lela, District Goalpara, Assam, Pin No.783124. 3. Project Implementation Committee, Integrated Tribal Development Project Board, District- Morigaon, represented by its Chairman, Sri Panindra Bordoloi. 4. Sri Panindra Bordoloi, Chairman, Project Implementation Committee, Integrated Tribal Development Project Board, District- Morigaon, resident of village Tengaguri PO Domal, District Morigaon, Assam PIN- 782105 5. Project Implementation Committee, Integrated Tribal Development Project Board, District Hojai, represented by its Chairman Sri Krishna Kanta Thousen 6. Shri Krishna Kanta Thousen, Chairman, Project Implementation Committee, Integrated Tribal Development Project Board, District Hojai, resident of village Nagal Bhanga, PO Samburia, PS Lanka, District Hojai, Assam Page 3 of 19

RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 2. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 3. The Director of Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department, Assam, Dispur, Guwahti-06 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, Assam 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, Assam 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, Assam 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Assam WRIT APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2016 1. The Lakhipur Sub-Divisional SC Development Board, District Cachar, Assam, represented by its President Hareswar Dhubi. 2. Sri Hareswar Dhubi, son of late Raghu Nandan Dhubi, R/o village Urabil Basti PO Pailapool District Cachar, Assam RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Guwahati- 6 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. Page 4 of 19

WRIT APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2016 1. The Silchar Sub-Divisional SC Development Board, District Cachar, Assam, represented by its President Arun Biswas. 2. Sri Arun Biswas, son of late Ramesh Chandra Biswas, R/o village Itkhola, R.K.Pally, PO and PS Silchar, District Cachar, Assam RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Assam represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT and BC Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT and BC Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. WRIT APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2016 1. The Hojai Sub-Divisional SC Development Board, Hojai, represented by its Chairman, namely, Ranjit Biswas 2. Sri Ranjit Biswas, S/O Sri Sudhir Ranjan Biswas, resident of village No.1 Ramnagar, PO Bhalukmari, via Lanka, Hojai (representing the appellant No.1, as its Chairman) 3. The Morigaon Sub-Divisional SC Development Board, Morigaon, represented by its Chairman, namely, Premchan Mandal. 4. Sri Premchan Mandal, S/O Late Thakur Das Mandal, resident of village No.1 Borpothar, PO Taptola, District Morigaon (representing the appellant no.3 as its Chairman) 5. The Karimganj Sub-Divisional SC Development Board, Karimganj, represented by its Chairman, namely, Himangshu Rn. Malakar Page 5 of 19

6. Shri Himangshu Rn. Malakar, S/O Late Sarada Rn. Malakar, village Nilkantapur, PO Manikbond District Karimganj (representing the appellant no.5, as its Chairman) RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department, Assam 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department, Assam, Dispur, Ghy-6. 3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department, Assam, Dispur, Ghy-6 WRIT APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2016 1. The Hailakandi Sub-Divisional Minorities Development Board of Hailakandi Sub-Division, represented by its Chairman, Prof. Hilal Uddin Laskar, Hailakandi Town, Ward No.4, PO, PS District Hailakandi, Assam 2. Prof. Hilal Uddin Laskar, Chairman, Hailakandi Sub-Divisional Minorities Development Board of Sub-Division Hailakandi Town, Ward No.4, PO, PS. Dist - Hailakandi, Assam RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Minorities and Development Department, Dispur, Guwahati -6. Page 6 of 19

2. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Minorities and Development Department, Dispur, Guwhati-6. 3. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Minorities and Development Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 WRIT APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2016 1. The Karimganj Sub-Divisional OBC Development Board, Karimganj represented by its Chairman, namely, Mohammad Abdul Waris. 2. Mohammad Abdul Waris, S/O Md. Abdur Rahman, resident of village Lafashail, PO Lakshmibazar, PS & Dist- Karimganj (representing the appellant No.1 as its Chairman) 3. The Sub-Divisional OBC Development Board, Lakhipur represented by its Chairman, namely, Sri Kanta Singha, S/O Late Baton Singha, village Bimmkandi, PO Bimmkandi Ghat, Dist-Cachar Pin-788126 4. Sri Kanta Singha, Chairman of the Sub-Divisional O.B.C. Dev. Board, Lakhipur S/O Late Baton Singha, village Bimmkandi, P.O.Bimmkandi Ghat, Dist- Cachar Pin-788126 (representing the appellant no.3 as its Chairman) 5. The Sub-Divisional OBC Development Board, Silchar, represented by its Chairman, namely, Sri K. Atan Singha, S/O K Bacha Singha, village Chandpur, PO Nagdirgram, Dist-Cachar Pin-788121 6. Sri K. Atan singha, Chairman of the Sub-Divisional O.B.C. Dev. Board, Silchar S/O K Bacha Singha, Village Chandpur, PO Nagdirgram, Dist- Cachar Pin-788121 (representing the appellant No.5, as its Chairman) RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Ghy -6. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Ghy-6. Page 7 of 19

3. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Ghy-6 4. The Director, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Ghy-6 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Cachar WRIT APPEAL NO. 438 OF 2016 1. The Tinsukia Sub-Divisional SC Development Board, Tinsukia represented by its Chairman, namely, Prabhat Chandra Das. 2. Sri Prabhat Chandra Das, S/O Late Ambarik Das, resident of village Dohutia Chuk Road, PO & PS Tinsukia, District Tinsukia, Assam representing the appellant no.1, as its Chairman) 3. The Hailakandi Sub-Divisional SC Development Board, Hailakandi represented by its Chairman, namely, Monoj Kumar Roy 4. Sri Monoj Kumar Roy, S/O Late Monoranjan Roy, PO & Village Kalinagar, PS Panchgram, District Hailakandi, (representing the appellant No.3, as its Chairman) RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Ghy -6. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Ghy-6. 3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Ghy. WRIT APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2016 1. The Nagaon Sub-Divisional OBC Development Board, Nagaon represented by its Chairman, namely, Pranjal Kumar Bora. Page 8 of 19

2. Sri Pranjal Kumar Bora, S/O Sri Jogeswar Bora, resident of village Dipholu Dawdhar, PO Itachali, Nagaon PIN 782003 (representing the appellant no.1, as its Chairman) 3. The Hojai Sub-Divisional OBC Development Board, Hojai represented by its Chairman, namely, Khokan Debnath 4. Khokan Debnath, S/O Late Harekrishna Debnath, resident of Village Dhalpukhuri PO Padumpukhuri, Hojai (representing the appellant No.3, as its Chairman) RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Ghy -6. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department, Dispur, Ghy-6. BEFORE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN For the appellants : For the Respondents: Mr. SK Talukdar, Mr. AM Barbhuiya, Advocates Mr.N Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Y Doloi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam Date of hearing : 07.03.2017 Date of judgment : 09.03.2017 (Ajit Singh, CJ) JUDGMENT AND ORDER This judgment and order shall finally decide WA Nos. 419, 420, 421, 429, 430, 431, 435, 437, 438 and 439, all of 2016, because they involve the Page 9 of 19

same issue and were heard together. Also the writ petitions have been dismissed by common order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in respective writ petitions filed by the appellants. 2. The State Government, by an order of the Governor, published a notification dated 20.2.2014 issuing guidelines relating to constitution of Scheduled Castes (SC)/Scheduled Tribes(ST)/Other Backward Classes (OBC) Development Boards at the Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer (SDWO) offices and constitution of Project Implementation Committee (PIC) in Integrated Tribal Development Project (ITDP) offices. The guidelines also state what shall be the term of office of the Boards constituted, the circumstances under which the Boards can be dissolved and the mode for removal of the Chairman, Vice Chairman or any Member of the Boards. 3. The appellants are various Development Boards constituted as per the guidelines of notification dated 20.2.2014. The main functions of the Boards are to ensure development in their areas by overseeing implementation of development schemes and perform public welfare activities. The Chairman and Members of the Boards were appointed by the Selection Committee after considering the applications made by the candidates along with the recommendations of the respective Deputy Commissioners. 4. The term of office of the Boards as indicated in the notification dated 20.2.2014 reads as under:- Term of Office: The term of office of the Board shall not exceed five years. The term of office shall be reckoned with effect from the date of notification constituting the Board. Provided that, if the Government is of the opinion that circumstances so exist whereby the orderly conduct of business of the Board is not possible, the Government may by notification dissolve the Board. Page 10 of 19

5. Later, by another notification dated 12.9.2014 the term of office of the Boards was amended to the extent that same shall not exceed 3 years. Also, in another subsequent notification dated 8.5.2015, it was stated that if there was any proposal for dissolving the existing Project Implementation Committees/Development Boards, the reason for the same would be clearly indicated and if there was any proposal for removal of any Member, the enquiry report establishing the facts, after giving reasonable opportunity to the Member, would be enclosed. 6. As mentioned above, there is a distinct provision for removal of Members in notification dated 20.2.2014. It reads as under:- Removal of Members: i) The Chairman/Vice-Chairman or any Member of the PIC/Development Board may be removed by the Government upon receipt of specific complaint and conduct of proper enquiry thereof and establishment of facts. ii) While doing so, the Chairman/Vice-Chairman/Member against whom the complaint has been lodged shall be given the reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. Also in respect of Sub-Divisional Minorities Development Boards, a Notification dated 2.7.2014 was issued by the State Government relating to their constitution and functioning. Clause IV of the Notification provides for the terms of office. It reads as under:- IV. Term of Office: The term of office of the Board shall not exceed five years. The term of office shall be reckoned with from the date of notification constituting the Board. Provided that, if the Government is of the opinion that circumstances so exist whereby the orderly conduct of business of the Board is not possible, the Government may by notification dissolve the Board. 8. Further, the order constituting the Sub-Divisional Minorities Development Boards provides that the tenure of the Board shall be (i) till a Page 11 of 19

new Board is constituted by the Government; (ii) till the Board enjoys the confidence of the Government; and (iii) if any charges of illegality established against the Board, the Board may be dissolved by the Government at any point of time. 9. Admittedly, none of the appellants/boards have completed their terms of office and yet the State Government vide Notifications dated 20.10.2016 and 26.8.2016 has dissolved them. One such notification reads as follows:- GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT FOR WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES & BACKWARD CLASSES DISPUR:::::::::: GUWAHATI ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR NOTIFICATION Dated Dispur, the 20 th October, 2016 No.TAD/BC/680/2015/91: In the interest of public service and smooth functioning of the Central and State Sector Schemes for the development of Scheduled Tribes, the Governor of Assam is pleased to dissolve all the Sub Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes (excluding District Council areas) constituted by the Department with immediate effect. Sd/- (P.K.Hazoari,ACS) Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt of Assam, WPT &BC Department, Dispur. 10. Aggrieved, the Boards challenged the Notifications by filing separate Writ Petitions and argued that the State Government has illegally dissolved them without forming a prior mandatory opinion that orderly conduct of business of the Boards was not possible. It was also argued that the Boards have been dissolved arbitrarily by one stroke of pen in utter violation of the principles of natural justice as neither any opportunity of hearing was given nor any reason has been recorded. But the learned Single Judge relying upon the Single Bench decision of this Court in Mahadev Panging vs. State of Assam, (2016) 2 GLR 831 has held that constitution and re-constitution of Page 12 of 19

the Boards is at the pleasure of the Government and there is no enforceable right of the nominated members to continue to hold office for any fixed tenure. Thus, applying the principle of Doctrine of Pleasure the learned Single Judge by the common impugned order has dismissed the writ petitions. It is in this background the present appeals have been filed. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel has also argued that having regard to the new guidelines enumerated in notification dated 20.2.2014 the learned Single Judge committed an illegality in applying the principle of Doctrine of Pleasure. The learned senior counsel for the State Government, on the other hand, defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He also placed reliance on the following earlier decisions of this Court (i) State of Assam vs. Makhan Pegu [2006 (1) GLT 472] (ii) Mahesh Doley vs. State of Assam, [2006 (3) GLT 832] (iii) Kamal Chandra Patar vs. The State of Assam [AIR 1981 Gau 4] (iv) Uttam Kumar Sarkar vs. Ratan Kumar Barman, [2005 (2) GLT 168] and (v) Mahadev Panging vs. The State of Assam [2016 (2) GLR 831]. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the principle of Doctrine of Pleasure is not applicable in the present bunch of cases. We say so because as per new guidelines published vide notification dated 20.2.2014, the Chairman and Vice Chairman are not nominated, but appointed by the Government and that too, on the recommendation made by the Selection Committee specially constituted for this purpose. Also, it is nowhere mentioned therein that either the term of office of the Boards or the tenure of Chairman/Vice Chairman of the Boards shall be at the pleasure of Government. On the contrary, the term of office of the Boards is fixed for a maximum period of 3/5 years, which is reckoned with, from the date of notification constituting the Boards. And the Boards can be dissolved before that period by a Page 13 of 19

notification only when the State Government was of the opinion that circumstances so existed whereby orderly conduct of business of the Boards was not possible. In other words, the State is empowered to dissolve the Boards before expiry of their term of office only when it was of the opinion that orderly conduct of business of the Boards was not possible and not otherwise. Requirement of forming such opinion is an indispensable condition before dissolving the Boards. Likewise, under the notification dated 20.2.2014 even the Chairman/Vice Chairman or Members of the Boards can be removed by the State only upon receipt of specific complaint and after conduct of proper enquiry thereof and establishment of facts. There is yet another mandatory condition which the Government has to adhere before removing and that is of giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing. With these conditions in the guidelines notified, intention is obvious that Government cannot either dissolve the Boards or remove the Chairman/Vice Chairman or Members of the Boards at its pleasure. Also in our country - which is governed by the Rule of Law - no authority can exercise any absolute discretion or power and an exercise of power in breach of express or implied conditions will be illegal if the condition breached is mandatory. Moreover, it is well settled that the authority must act in a manner in which it is empowered to do so. The learned Single Judge overlooked these new provisions added in the guidelines and illegally dismissed all the writ petitions by the impugned order. 13. We shall now refer to the decisions cited by the learned Senior counsel for the State and examine whether the State gets any help from them. The cases of State of Assam vs. Makhan Pegu and Mahesh Doley vs. State of Assam were decided by another but same Division Bench of this Court. In these cases, the Government had constituted interim council by nominating Members under Section 80 of the Missing Autonomous Council Act, 1995 who were subsequently removed. Aggrieved, the nominated Members challenged their removal. The question therefore arose was Page 14 of 19

whether such nominated Members could be removed at the pleasure of the Government. Section 80 which was the foundation of decision is reproduced as under: 80. Transitional provision: The Government shall, as soon as possible, take steps for the constitution of an Interim General Council by nomination and to nominate the Executive Council therefrom to perform in addition, the functions of the Village Councils till the General Council is constituted under this Act: Provided that any or all the members of such Interim General or Executive Council may be removed and replaced by any other person by the Government at any time A bare reading of the above quoted Section 80 reveals that it was a transitional provision casting a duty on the Government to take steps for constituting an Interim General Council by nomination and to nominate executive council there from to perform duties till the constitution of General Council. And the nomination so made to the Interim General Council or to the Executive Council was not for any particular period. Also it did not assure any tenure as such and the nominated Members held the office during the pleasure of the Government. The Division Bench therefore held that it was implicit that a nominated Member could hold the office only during the pleasure of the Government. But, as seen above, such is not the position in the present bunch of cases and hence, the decisions being distinguishable both on facts and law do not help the State in any manner. 14. The case of Kamal Chandra Patar vs. State of Assam was decided by Single Bench. The petitioner in that case was appointed as Chairman of the Board which was constituted for a period of one year by notification dated 23.8.1979 which the Government soon dissolved by another notification dated 20.9.1979. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the action of dissolving the Board on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given nor any reason was assigned for dissolving the Board. The learned Single Judge observed that it seemed the Page 15 of 19

Board was constituted at the pleasure of the Government and could be dissolved at its pleasure. And on this observation, action of dissolving the Board was held to be valid. We have examined the notification dated 23.8.1979 by which the Governor was pleased to constitute the Board for a period of one year. In that notification, unlike notification dated 20.2.2014 (of the cases at hand), there is absolutely no mention under what circumstances the Government may dissolve the Board. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was perhaps right in holding that the Board can be dissolved at the pleasure of the Government because under notification dated 23.8.1979, the Governor was not required to form any opinion regarding orderly conduct of business of the Boards before dissolving it. Hence, even this decision does not help the State. 15. In the case of Uttam Kumar Sarkar vs. Ratan Kumar Barman also vide notification dated 9.7.2001, the Governor was pleased to constitute a Board with as many as 20 Members to be headed by a Chairman. And when this Board was continuing by performing its duties the Chairman was suddenly removed vide notification dated 22.12.2004 and a new Chairman was appointed. However, later by another subsequent notification dated 12.1.2005 the newly appointed Chairman was removed and first Chairman was re-appointed. Aggrieved, the newly appointed Chairman challenged his removal by filing writ petition. The learned Single Judge after examining the notification dated 9.7.2001 which is similar to that of notification dated 23.8.1979 and was considered in the case of Kamal Chandra Patar vs. State of Assam upheld the removal of newly appointed Chairman by applying the doctrine of pleasure. The notification dated 9.7.2001 is altogether different from the notification dated 20.2.2014 as in that notification mode for removal of the Chairman was not provided. The decision of Uttam Kumar Sarkar vs. Ratan Kumar Barman is therefore not applicable in the present bunch of cases. Page 16 of 19

16. In Mahadev Panging vs. State of Assam also the petitioners were nominated as Chairman of the Boards which were constituted by different notifications in the year 2011 i.e. much prior to the notification dated 20.2.2014. Admittedly, the petitioners were neither appointed as Chairman by any selection process nor the Boards were constituted for any specific period. What the petitioners projected was that as per past practice their term of office should be 5 years which was curtailed to 3 years by subsequent notification resulting into expiry of their term. It was on these facts the learned Single Judge held that since no tenure of the Boards constituted nor any term of office of nominated Chairman was fixed, the Government was competent to fix the maximum term of 3 years. Apparently, this case is also distinguishable and does not help the State. It is however to be noted that even the learned Single Judge in paragraph 21 of the judgment by making reference to two notifications of 2014 observed that for the first time guidelines were laid down for constituting the Boards and selecting the Members. But the learned Single Judge also held these guidelines too did not prescribe the fixed tenure because they only said that the term of office shall not exceed 3/5 years. In our considered opinion the learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that though in the notification the term of office is stated to be not exceeding 3/5 years, the Boards could be dissolved prior to that period only if the Government was of the opinion that circumstances so existed whereby the orderly conduct of business of the Boards was not possible. In other words, the maximum term of office of the Boards has been fixed to be 3/5 years but with a rider that the Government by notification shall dissolve the Boards after it was of the opinion that orderly conduct of business of the Boards was not possible. 17. The next question which requires our consideration is whether the State really formed an opinion in terms of the guidelines published in notification dated 20.2.2014 before dissolving the Boards. We have already re-produced one of the many notifications in paragraph 9 of the order Page 17 of 19

dissolving the Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards for Scheduled Tribes constituted by the Department. According to the notification, all the Boards were dissolved in the interest of public and smooth functioning of the Central and State Sector Schemes for the development of Scheduled Tribes. The notification on the face of it does not reflect any formation of opinion by the State that circumstances so existed whereby the orderly conduct of business of the existing Boards was not possible. Also there is nothing on record to establish that individual assessment of the orderly conduct of business of each Board was made before dissolving it. On the contrary, original record produced by the State, pursuant to our direction, reveals that despite two detailed well-reasoned opinions dated 18.8.2016 of the Joint Legal Remembrancer, Judicial Department and dated 29.9.2016 of the Joint Secretary, Judicial Department, against proposal to dissolve the Boards before first forming an opinion as stipulated in the guidelines of notification dated 20.2.2014, the Boards were dissolved most arbitrarily on the instruction of Minister of the Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department. 18. As seen above, unlike earlier notifications, for the first time, in notification dated 20.2.2014, guidelines were laid regarding constitution of Boards, appointment of Members through selection by a Selection Committee, term of office of the Boards, condition for dissolving the Boards and condition for removal of Members of the Boards. Apparently, the salutary imperative condition of first forming an opinion that orderly conduct of business of the Boards was not possible was deliberately introduced to check arbitrary dissolution of Boards by the State Government which was perhaps being done in the past and were held to be valid by the Courts on the plea of doctrine of pleasure. Importantly, for dissolving the Boards, requirement is of formation of opinion by the State that orderly conduct of business of such Boards was not possible and not merely smooth functioning of the Central and State Sector Schemes for the development of Scheduled Page 18 of 19

Tribes. For these reasons, we have no option but to hold that the entire action of the State in dissolving hundreds of Boards by one stroke of pen is not only arbitrary but also illegal which cannot be allowed to be sustained. 19. There is yet an another reason to declare the action of Government dissolving the Boards as illegal and that is, violation of principle of natural justice. Admittedly, not one Member of the Boards dissolved was given an opportunity of hearing to convince the State that there was already smooth functioning of the Central and State Sector Schemes for the development of Scheduled Tribes and such smooth functioning would continue. 20. This being the situation, since the Government has illegally exercised its power to dissolve the Boards, we set aside the impugned notifications as well as the order under challenge passed by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the dissolved appellants/boards shall be treated as restored, with immediate effect. The appeals are allowed, but with no order as to cost. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE skd Page 19 of 19