Back
High Court Of Delhi
GHANSHYAM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 3595 of 1989
Decided On : 03/09/1990
DIRECTORS - NOMINATION - MALA FIDE - Vires of Section 41(3) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 - Held, the nomination of the petitioner as Director till further orders was not an employment under the Government although attractive, is to be rejected. Even if the nomination is to be equated with the word appointment, it cannot be held that it was an employment under the Government. The scheme of the Act and the Rules/bye-laws negatives that contention.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was nominated as a Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Farmers fertilizer Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) by the Government of India by a letter of 30/03/1988. The nomination was made under Bye-law No. 33 of IFFCO. It was to take effect from 31/03/1988 when the board was to be re-constituted. The nomination was not for a fixed period but "valid until further orders". In partial modification of the letter dated the 30/03/1988, the Government of India by letter dated the 19/12/1989 nominated Shri Satbir Singh Kadiyan, Member, Legislative Assembly of the State of Haryana (respondent No. 3 herein) on the said Board of Directors in place of the petitioner herein. The letter was to take effect immediately and the nomination as in the case of Shri Ghanshyam Singh, was "until further orders". That letter is Annexure. 4 to the writ petition. The said respondent assumed office as Director of IFFCO w. e. f. 20/12/1989 vice the petitioner herein and a circular to that effect was issued by the IFFCO on 20/12/1989 (Annexure. 5 to the writ petition ). These two orders are impugned in the writ petition on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the nomination of the petitioner as Director till further orders was not an employment under the Government although attractive, is to be rejected. Even if the nomination is to be equated with the word appointment, it cannot be held that it was an employment under the Government. The scheme of the Act and the Rules/bye-laws negatives that contention.
Issues: 1. Whether the nomination of the petitioner as Director till further orders was an employment under the Government? 2. Whether the petitioner can be deemed to have been nominated for a fixed term as a Director of IFFCO? 3. Whether the challenge to sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Multi-Stale Cooperatives societies Act, 1984 is misplaced?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The nomination of the petitioner as Director till further orders was not an employment under the Government although attractive, is to be rejected. Even if the nomination is to be equated with the word appointment, it cannot be held that it was an employment under the Government. The scheme of the Act and the Rules/bye-laws negatives that contention. 2. The petitioner cannot be deemed to have been nominated for a fixed term as a Director of IFFCO. 3. The challenge to sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Multi-Stale Cooperatives societies Act, 1984 is misplaced.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed in limine and the interim orders are vacated. No order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner Shri Ghanshyam Singh wasnominated as a Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Farmersfertilizer Cooperative Limited (for short iffco ) by the Government ofindia by a letter of 30/03/1988. The nomination was made under Bye-law No. 33 of IFFCO. It was to take effect from 31/03/1988 when theboard was to be re-constituted. The nomination was not for afixed periodbut "valid until further orders". In partial modification of the letter datedhie 30/03/1988, the Government of India by letter dated the 1 9/12/1989 nominated Shri Satbir Singh Kadiyan, Member, Legislativeassembly of the State of Haryana (respondent No. 3 herein) on the said Boardof Directors in place of the petitioner herein. The letter was to take effectimmediately and the nomination as in the case of Shri Ghanshyam Singh, was"until further orders". That letter is Annexure. 4 to the writ petition. Thesaid respondent assumed office as Director of 1ffco w. e. f. 20/12/1989 vice the petitioner herein and a circular to that effect was issued by the1ffco on 20/12/1989 (Annexure. 5 to the writ petition ). These twoorders are impugned in the writ petition on various grounds.
( 2 ) ONE of the grounds taken in the writ petition is pased on allegedmala fides of respondent No. 4. The averments in this respect are containedinparagraphs 29 to34of the. writ petition. During arguments, Mr. D. D. Thakur learned counsel. for the petitioner submitted that the plea of thepetitioner is not that the Government or respondent No. 4 Shri Devi Lal wereactuated either by spite or ill-will against him. But he was imputing malicein its legal sense against respondent No. 4. His case is that assuming respondent No. 4 has acted in a legitimate exercise of power but infact he has notacted bonalide inasmuch as while pursuing a legitimate aim, his motive was tosave the Haryana Ministry headed by his son.
( 3 ) ONE has to agree with Mr. Thakur that in a case where mala fidesstand proved, the order of the Government or of a Minister cannot be allowedto stand.
( 4 ) TO examine the plea whether mala fides, as urged, that is to say,malice in its legal sense has been established, the avernments in paragraphs 29to 34 may be noticed. The petitioner in support of those averments relies ona number of press clippings.
"29. That the respondent No. 4 Shri Devi Lal before the elections ofparliament held in November, 1989 was holding the office of Chiefminister of Haryana. Over a period of time the electorate of Haryanagot disillusionment with the performance of the Government headed byrespondent No. 4 Shri Devi Lal and they responded to the antigovernment feeling in Haryana. The first reflection of disillusionmentwas visible when Shri Tiyab Hussan, Member of Legistative Assemblyof Haryana belonging to the Janata Dal, Shri Devi Lal group resignedfrom the party and joined Congress (1 ). In the meantime, elections ofthe Parliament declared and respondent. No. 4 Shri Devi Lal startedpropagating that he would seek fresh mandate of the people afterparliamentary elections. The parliamentary elections commenced andduring the course of election, four ministers, namely S/shri K. R. Punia. Hari Singh, Parmanand and Laxman Dass Kambod. and five MLAsresigned from the Government and raised a banner of revolt. Theelection results were declared. They remained favourable for Janata Dalso far Northern States were concerned, but were not encouraging so farharyana was concerfedas4outofl0seats won by Congress (1) withhuge margin. The trend of voting in Haryana left no illusions in themind of respondent No. 4 Shri Devi Lal about his deterioratingpopularity in Haryana. He backed out his statement made during theelections that he would seek fresh mandate from the people. 30. That, however. Shri Devi Lal, respondent No. 4 was appointedas Deputy Prime Minister in the new Government and besides Deputyprime Minister, he is also given charge of the Agriculture Ministry ofwhich fertilizers is one of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
