The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of the Managing Director's services was in accordance with the Articles of Association and not in violation of any statutory provision. The court also emphasized that the termination was simpliciter and did not attach any stigma to the Managing Director's conduct, and rejected the petitioner's claim of mala fide.

A. K. Yog, J.—Earlier a Writ Petition (No. 45950 of 2003) was filed by the petitioner on more or less identical facts and grounds, as the present petition. It had several defects and, therefore, not entertained on merits and dismissed on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner himself without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file fresh writ petition so as to enable the petitioner to overcome the defects, which had crept inadvertently.

Petitioner, in the present writ petition, has claimed following reliefs :

“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of termination dated 20th September, 2003, passed by respondents (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) ;

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to continue the petitioner as the Managing Director of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Company, Varanasi :

(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the appointment and quashing the appointment dated 18.10.2003 of Sri Mukul Singhal, Managing Director, Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Varanasi ;

(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding

upon the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Managing Director, Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Varanasi ;

(iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, which the petitioner may be found entitled to, in the circumstances of the case ;

(iv) to award costs of the petition to the petitioner.”

2. Petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash impugned order of termination of his services as Managing Director of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited/respondent No. 5 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) as well as order dated 18.10.2003 appointing in his place on Mukul Singhal/respondent No. 6 as interim measure and a writ of mandamus to continue the petitioner as Managing Director of the said company on the following grounds :

“(A) Because the impugned action and order of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in contravention of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, bad in law.

(B) Because the impugned action of the Government is clearly based on political consideration whereas a professional person like the petitioner has no role to play so far as the political considerations are concerned but in spite of this fact he has been made a scape goat.

(C) Because for removal of a director, Section 284 of the Companies Act itself contemplates that before removing a director he will be served with memo of charges and after considering his reply, the Government will take any action on the basis of the charges levelled and after considering the reply filed by the director.

(D) Because before passing the impugned order, the respondents neither provided any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his position nor he was informed of any ground on which action has been taken against him.

(E) Because the impugned action of the respondents entails serious civil consequences and, therefore, principles of natural justice had to be complied with.

(F) Because by change of Government all kind of actions are being taken against the officers appointed by the previous Government on the assumptions that they were close to the previous Government.

(G) Because there is absolutely no material before the State Government to infer on charges of misconduct against the petitioner.

(H) Because the petitioner was neither given to understand reasons for his removal nor he was given any show cause notice or copy of the resolution which was placed before the Committee as pointed out under Article 73, therefore the petitioner was in complete dark with regard to reasons for his removal.

(I) Because the C.M.D. deliberately withheld appraisal report from the committee and the committee did not have ch