WP 6270/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6270/2011 Satyapal Sakharam Kadam V/s The State & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri R.R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.B. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no.3 as Chairman of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. It is the basic contention of the petitioner that the appointment of the respondent no.3 is in contravention of Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 & 2 opposing the WP 6270/11 2 petition. For considering the rival contentions, it will be necessary to refer Section 4 (2)(a) of the Act : "A Chairman, being a person having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of (matters relating to environmental protection) or a person having knowledge and experience in administering institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid to be nominated by the State Government." It can thus be seen that a person having been appointed must possess a special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection or should have knowledge and experience of administering institutions dealing with the matters relating to environmental protection. Such a person has to be appointed by nomination by the State Government. Insofar as qualification of the respondent no.3 is concerned, the respondent nos.1 & 2 in the affidavit in reply have stated thus: "I also further say that the post of Chairman does not have any technical qualifications prescribed. Mr.J.S. Sahani has an admirable record of dealing with matters related to WP 6270/11 3 environment, both directly and indirectly in his tenure as Member Secretary, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, which is the organisation handling sewerage and sanitation. He also served in the Finance Department looking after the budget preparation and spearheading financial reforms, wherein focus on environment was vital. As Managing Director, SICOM, he played a major role in raising environmental consciousness in industries. History sheets of posts held by Shri J.S. Sahani is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "D"." It has also been stated in paragraph 7 that in the entire country, 21 persons from the All India Services have been appointed as Chairmen of Pollution Control Boards having practical and experience in dealing with the matters relating to environment. A chart of such officers is annexed at Exhibit D of the affidavit in reply. While sitting in writ jurisdiction, it will not be permissible for this Court to examine the comparative merit of the petitioner vis-a- vis that of the respondent no.3. The only scrutiny that will be permissible is as to whether the respondent no.3 possesses some special knowledge or practical WP 6270/11 4 experience in respective matters relating to environmental protection or as to whether he is a person having knowledge and experience in administering institutions dealing with the matters relating to environmental protection. The perusal of paragraph 6 of the affidavit in reply would show that the respondent no.3 as a Member Secretary of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran had an occasion to have practical experience of administering an organization, which handles sewerage and sanitation. It could further be seen that as his service in the Finance Department, he had an experience of looking after the budget preparation and spearheading financial reforms wherein focus on environment was vital. It has further been stated that as a Managing Director of SICOM, he has played a major role in raising environmental consciousness in industries. It thus cannot be said that the respondent no.3 lacks the basic requirements as are provided in Sub- WP 6270/11 5 section (2)(a) of Section 4 of the Act. In that view of the matter, we do not find that a case is made out for interference. The writ petition is rejected. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 10.10.2011 ndk/c10101123