GHANSHYAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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.