Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Shri Chandrakant Gopikishan Dayama, was appointed as Chairman of the Maharashtra State Powerlooms Corporation (MSPC) by notification dated 21 August 2014 for a period of three years under Article 72 of the Articles of Association. On 2 December 2015, the Governor of Maharashtra passed an order removing the Petitioner from the office of Chairman in exercise of power under Article 72(3) of the Articles of Association, which confers upon the Governor the power to remove any Director including the Chairman at any time in his absolute discretion. The Petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, contending that the impugned order was based on a false and malafide complaint and was therefore arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331. The Court perused the impugned order and noted that detailed reasons were recorded therein. The order stated that the Managing Director of the Corporation was called upon to submit a factual report regarding the allegations against the Petitioner. The report revealed that the Petitioner did not call any meeting of the Board or members of the Corporation, did not visit the Divisional Offices, and made no efforts to obtain orders for supply of cloth from Government Departments, thereby causing financial loss to the Corporation. The Governor, after considering the facts and material on record, passed the removal order. The Court held that it was not impressed by the Petitioner's submissions. The contention that the complaint was malafide could not be sustained as it would require a factual inquiry which cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings. Simplicitor allegations of malafides are insufficient to invalidate the order. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Removal from Office - Absolute Discretion - Articles of Association, Article 72(3) - The Governor has the power to remove any Director including Chairman at any time in his absolute discretion. The impugned order recorded detailed reasons based on a factual report, and the Court held that the exercise of such discretion is not open to challenge on merits unless vitiated by malafides or arbitrariness. (Paras 1-4) B) Evidence - Malafides - Allegations of Malafides - The Petitioner's contention that the complaint was malafide was rejected as it would require a factual inquiry which cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. Simplicitor allegations of malafides are insufficient to invalidate the order. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Governor's order removing the Petitioner as Chairman of MSPC under Article 72(3) of the Articles of Association is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Governor's order was based on detailed reasons and a factual report, and the allegations of malafides could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction as they required factual inquiry.
Law Points
- Governor's absolute discretion under Article 72(3) of Articles of Association
- Removal of Chairman without notice or hearing
- Limited judicial review of discretionary powers
- Malafide allegations require factual inquiry
