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 3 years under Article 72 of the Articles of Association. He challenged an order dated 2 December 2015 passed by the Governor of Maharashtra removing him from the office of Chairman under Article 72(3) of the Articles of Association. The Petitioner contended that the removal was based on a malafide and false complaint. The Court examined Article 72(3), which confers absolute discretion on the Governor to remove any Director including the Chairman at any time. The impugned order recorded detailed reasons, including that the Petitioner failed to call Board meetings, did not visit Divisional Offices, and made no efforts to secure orders causing financial loss, based on a factual report from the Managing Director. The Court held that the Governor had considered the material and exercised power appropriately. The allegation of malafides was not substantiated and would require factual inquiry beyond writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Removal from Office - Absolute Discretion - Article 72(3) of Articles of Association of Maharashtra State Powerlooms Corporation - The Governor has 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 power is not arbitrary. (Paras 1-4)
B) Judicial Review - Malafides - Factual Inquiry - The contention that the complaint was malafide requires factual inquiry which cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. Simplicitor allegations of malafides are not sufficient 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 on the ground that it was based on a malafide complaint.
Final Decision
The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
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 malafide allegations
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 54
WRIT PETITION NO. 12584 OF 2015
ANOOP V. MOHTA, G.S. KULKARNI
Mr. Subhash V. Gutte for the Petitioner, Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri Chandrakant Gopikishan Dayama
The Secretary to Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging the removal of the Petitioner from the post of Chairman of Maharashtra State Powerlooms Corporation.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 2 December 2015 removing him as Chairman.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner alleged that the removal order was based on a malafide and false complaint.
Issues
Whether the Governor's order removing the Petitioner under Article 72(3) of the Articles of Association is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Whether the allegation of malafides against the complaint can be entertained in writ jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed on the basis of a malafide and incorrect complaint, and relied on B.P. Singhal v. Union of India.
Respondents contended that the Governor had absolute discretion under Article 72(3) and the order was based on detailed reasons and a factual report.
Ratio Decidendi
The Governor's power under Article 72(3) of the Articles of Association to remove a Director including the Chairman is absolute and discretionary. The impugned order recorded detailed reasons based on a factual report, and the Court cannot substitute its own view. Allegations of malafides require factual inquiry and cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (2) above the Governor shall have the power to remove any Director including the Chairman and the Vicechairman at any time in his absolute discretion.
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 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.
Procedural History
The Petitioner was appointed as Chairman on 21 August 2014. On 2 December 2015, the Governor passed an order removing him. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 12584 of 2015 challenging the removal. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 14 October 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Articles of Association of Maharashtra State Powerlooms Corporation: Article 72, Article 72(3)
