STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. versus CHANDAM MANIHAR SINGH

STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. versus CHANDAM MANIHAR SINGH

A person appointed to fill a casual vacancy (such as Chairman of the Pollution Control Board) is entitled to hold office only for the remainder of the original incumbent’s term and not a fresh three-year term from date of appointment; High Court’s direction granting respondent three-year tenure from nomination was erroneous.

Parties
Appellant: State of Manipur and Ors.; Respondent: Chandam Manihar Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of Gauhati High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Constitution and Reconstitution of State Pollution Control Board, Term of Office of Chairman and Members, Casual Vacancy, Removal From Office, Interpretation of Statutory Provisions
Service Law Environmental Law Constitution and Reconstitution of State Pollution Control Board Term of Office of Chairman and Members Casual Vacancy Removal From Office Interpretation of Statutory Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Manipur and Ors.

Appellant

Chandam Manihar Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of Gauhati High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person appointed to fill a casual vacancy as Chairman of State Pollution Control Board is entitled to hold office for a full three-year term or only the remainder of the predecessor’s term
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in directing continuance of respondent for three years from date of appointment

Ratio Decidendi

A person appointed to fill a casual vacancy (such as Chairman of the Pollution Control Board) is entitled to hold office only for the remainder of the original incumbent’s term and not a fresh three-year term from date of appointment; High Court’s direction granting respondent three-year tenure from nomination was erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court’s direction set aside; respondent’s term governed by remainder of predecessor’s tenure
  • After 15.10.1999, vacancy of Chairman to be filled according to law