Shri. Chandrakant Gopikishan ... vs The Secretary To Honble Governor ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5999 Bom

    ssm                                                                        1                13-wp12584.15.sxw

                   IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                                           
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 12584 OF 2015




                                                                                   
    Shri Chandrakant Gopikishan Dayama                                                      ....Petitioner
               Vs.
    The Secretary to Hon'ble 




                                                                                  
    Governor of Maharashtra & Ors.                                                          ....Respondents. 

    Mr. Subhash V. Gutte for the Petitioner.
    Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.




                                                                      
                                     CORAM  :  ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
                                              ig  G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE : 14 OCTOBER 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER- G.S. KULKARNI, J.):-

The Petitioner, who was appointed by notification dated 21

August 2014, on the post of the Chairman of the Maharashtra State

Powerlooms Corporation, (for short 'MSPC') in exercise of the power

under Article 72 of the Articles of Association for a period of 3 years,

has approached this Court challenging order dated 2 December 2015

passed by the Hon'ble the Governor of Maharashtra, whereby in

exercise of power conferred under Article 72(3) of the Articles of

Association, the Petitioner is removed from the office of the Chairman,

MSPC. It would be appropriate to extract Article 72(3) of the Bye-

laws.

ssm 2 13-wp12584.15.sxw

"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (2) above the Governor shall have the power to remove any

Director including the Chairman and the Vice-chairman at any time in his absolute discretion."

2 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits

that the impugned order is passed on the basis of a complaint and the

allegations contained in the said Complaint, are totally malafide and

incorrect. He therefore, submits that the impugned order being

passed relying on such false complaint, becomes arbitrary and cannot

be sustained in law. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the

. Singhal Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1.

Supreme Court in B.P

3 On a perusal of the impugned order, we note that detailed

reasons are recorded and on the basis of which, the Hon'ble Governor

has exercised power under Article 72 (3) of the Articles of Association

to remove the Petitioner from the office of the Chairman. The

impugned order records that the Managing Director of the

Corporation was called upon to submit a factual report in regard to

the allegations made in the complaint against the Petitioner. From the

1 (2010) 6 SCC 331

ssm 3 13-wp12584.15.sxw

report, it was revealed that the Petitioner did not call upon any

meeting of the Board of Corporation as also with the members of the

Corporation. The Petitioner also did not visit the Divisional Offices of

the Corporation which was necessary for the smooth functioning of

the Corporation. It is also recorded that the Petitioner did not make

any efforts to get orders for supply of cloth from various Government

Departments and thereby has caused financial loss to the Corporation.

Thus, the Hon'ble Governor, after taking into consideration the facts of

the case and the entire material on record, thought it appropriate to

pass the impugned order.

4 We are thus not impressed with the submissions as made

by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The contention

that the complaint against the Petitioner was malafide, also cannot be

sustained as it would require factual inquiry which cannot be gone

into in this Writ Petition. Simplicitor allegations of malafides in any

case, would not be of any avail. The reliance on the decision of the

Supreme Court in case of B.P. Singhal (Supra), which concerned the

appointment on a Constitutional post of the Governor of a State, is

also not well founded, inasmuch as, in the present case the impugned

ssm 4 13-wp12584.15.sxw

order is not an order where no reasons are given. The impugned

decision is based upon an appropriate fact finding and proper reasons

are contained in the order and the same is taken by the Hon'ble the

Governor in public interest and for public good which is ultimately for

the benefit of the public Corporation.

5 In a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case

of Dnyaneshwar Digambar Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra 2 , which

pertained to the appointment (of the Petitioner therein) as Director

and Chairman of 'Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakaar

Development Corporation Limited', this Court referring to the decision

of the Supreme Court in case of B.P. Singhal (Supra) and as no reasons

were given by the Hon'ble Governor, had set aside the order passed by

the Hon'ble Governor. However, in the context of the present case, the

relevant observations of the Division Bench which reiterates the

position in law that the Hon'ble Governor is required to give reasons

can very well be seen from the observations of the Court in para 8 and

10 of the Judgment, which reads thus:-

"8 Now, we come to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.P. Singhal. In Writ Petition No.326

2 Writ Petition NO.707 of 2015, decided on 6 October 2015

ssm 5 13-wp12584.15.sxw

of 2015 and other connected matters decided by this Court on 8 May 2015 to which one of us (A.S. Oka, J.) was a party, this Court has considered a case where the

Chairman and Members of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation were removed by the State'

Government by invoking the doctrine of pleasure,. It may be that on facts, the Apex Court in the case of B.P. Singhal was considering the case of a constitutional post. However, what is material is the ratio of the decision.

This Court in Writ Petition No.326 of 2015 and other connected petitions has considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in paragraphs 22,23 and 34 of the decision the case of B.P. Singhal."

"10 Thus the law laid down by the Apex Court is

that the withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the State Government and it can only be for valid reasons. Moreover, the power of

withdrawal of pleasure can be used reasonably and only for public good. We must note here that though the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.326 of 2015 has been challenged by the State Government before the

Apex Court, admittedly there is no ad-interim relief

granted by the Apex Court."

6 In view of the above discussion, we see no merits in the

Petition. Writ Petition is rejected. No order as to costs.

               (G.S. KULKARNI, J.)                                                  (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)