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.

A.S. Oka, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and the learned AGP for first and second respondents. On the earlier date, the parties were put to notice that the petition will be taken up for final hearing at admission stage. Accordingly, the petition is heard for final disposal.

2. The petitioner was appointed on 5th September, 2014 by the State Government as a Director and the Chairman of the third respondent which is a State owned Corporation which is registered as a Company under the Companies Act, 1956. The third respondent is a Government company. The appointment was for a period of 3 years or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has taken an exception to the order dated 12th December, 2014 passed by the State Government by which the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled.

4. There is a reply filed by Shri Vasant Nivrutti Waghmare, the Managing Director of the third respondent on behalf of the State Government and on behalf of the third respondent. Another affidavit is filed by the same officer on 12th January, 2015.

5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that assuming that the doctrine of pleasure may have been invoked by the State Government for removing the petitioner, the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State Government shows that there are absolutely no reasons recorded for taking the drastic action of removing of the petitioner from the post of the Chairman. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India and anr., (2010) 6 SCC 331. He relied upon the judgment and order dated 8th May, 2015, Writ Petition No. 326 of 2015, Jeewanrao Gore vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2015 (5) Mh.L.J. 375] and other connected Petitions of this Court. He submitted that as no reasons whatsoever have been assigned either in the order or in the affidavit-in-reply or even in the proposal submitted before the Government for removal of the petitioner, the order of removal of the petitioner stands vitiated. The learned AGP appearing for the first and second respondents relied upon the Rules and Regulations of the third respondent. Her submission is that the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Governor have absolute power to remove any Director, the Chairman and the Vice-chairman of the third respondent-Corporation at any time at their absolute discretion. The learned AGP further submitted that under the powers delegated by the Hon'ble Governor to the Government of Maharashtra, the decision was taken to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. The learned AGP relied upon Exhibit-4 to the reply which is a note dated 18th November, 2014 made by the Ministry of Social Justice and Special Assistant Department, the Government of Maharashtra under the direction of the Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. She urged that Writ Jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked for disturbing the discretionary order passed by the Government. Her further submission is that the order of appointment of the petitioner makes it clear that the duration of appointment will be for a period of three years or till the date of his removal, whichever is earlier and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right of continuation for a period of three years. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent relied upon the affidavit of Shri Vasant Nivrutti Waghmare and urged that the doctrine of pleasure has been rightly invoked. His submission is that while deciding Writ Petition No. 326 of 2015 decided on 8th May, 2015, this Court has not properly considered the decision in the case of B.P. Singhal as the decision was applicable only to the appointments made under the Constitution of India. He, therefore, urged that the law laid down in the case of B.P. Sin