Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1543 (KER)

Anil S. Das v. K. Vikraman

2025-05-30

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M.

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.) Regard being had to the similitude of the issue involved in these two writ appeals, the same are being heard analogously and being decided by this common judgment. 2. In both the appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 20.12.2024 arising from W.P.(C) No.6667 of 2023 whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the appointment of Sri.Anil S.Das, the appellant in WA No.2165 of 2024, as the Managing Director of Kerala State Warehousing Corporation, and further directed the appointment of the new Managing Director, in accordance with law. 3. Sri.K.Vikrman, the 1 st respondent in W.A No.2165 of 2024, had filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs: i. To declare that the appointment of the 6th respondent as Managing Director of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation is illegal; ii. to declare that the petitioner who has decades of experience in the domain of Warehousing is eligible to be considered to the post of Managing Director of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation; iii. to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to quash the appointment of the 6th respondent as Managing Director of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation. iv. to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing Ext. P.9 order appointing the 6th respondent as Managing Director of the KSWC; v. to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to forward the name of the petitioner to the Board of Directors for consideration”. 4. Learned Single Judge, after dealing with the matter on merits and considering the procedure for appointment of the Managing Director as provided in Section 20(1)(c) of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), held that the State Government has violated the aforesaid provision in appointing Sri.Anil S.Das to the post of Managing Director and set aside the order with a direction to the State Government to appoint a new Managing Director, in effective consultation with the Board of Directors of the Corporation within two months from the date of the order, strictly in accordance with law, from amongst the eligible candidates based on merit only. Being aggrieved, Sri.Anil S.Das and the State preferred the above writ appeals challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Being aggrieved, Sri.Anil S.Das and the State preferred the above writ appeals challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A No.2165 of 2024 (6 th respondent in WP(C)) contended that the appointment was made after following the due procedure by the State Government in the best interest of the Corporation and as a matter of fact, there is no prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of Managing Director. Since the duties and responsibilities of the Managing Director are purely administrative in nature, the dominion knowledge of Warehousing was not prescribed either in the statute or in the rules. He further submitted that Sri.Anil S.Das retired from service as Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police with the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police in February, 2022 rendering 27 years of service and his experience brought the loss making public sector unit into a profit making organisation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appointment of Sri.Anil S.Das is illegal and the same cannot be sustained. The only procedure for appointment of Managing Director is provided in Section 20 of the Act and therefore, his appointment cannot be faulted with. Learned Single Judge committed an error in quashing the appointment of Sri.Anil S.Das without assigning any reason as to why this procedure was not followed prior to his appointment. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the writ appeal filed by him deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.37 of 2025 contended that because of the interim order granted by this Court, Sri.Anil S.Das still continues to be the interim Managing Director of the Corporation and due to pendency of the writ appeal, the Government is unable to appoint a regular Managing Director. Section 20 of the Act deals with the management of the State Warehousing Corporation. The Legislature does not prescribe any particular qualification for the post of Managing Director. However, the State Government has powers to consult the Board of Directors and thereafter select suitable candidates. That apart, the scheme of the Act does not allow the State Government to impose any qualification beyond those stipulated in the statute. 7. Section 20 of the Act reads thus: “20. However, the State Government has powers to consult the Board of Directors and thereafter select suitable candidates. That apart, the scheme of the Act does not allow the State Government to impose any qualification beyond those stipulated in the statute. 7. Section 20 of the Act reads thus: “20. (1) The general superintendence and management of the affairs of a State Warehousing Corporation shall vest in a Board of Directors which shall consist of the following namely;- (a) five directors nominated by the Central Warehousing Corporation, of whom one shall be nominated in consultation with the State Bank and one at least shall be a non-official;- (b) five directors nominated by the State Government; and (c) a Managing Director, appointed by the State Government in consultation with the directors referred to in clauses (a) and b (a) under intimation to the Central Warehousing Corporation. (2) The Chairman of the Board of Directors shall be appointed by the State Government from among the directors of the State Warehousing Corporation under intimation to the Central Warehousing Corporation. (3) The Managing Director shall (a) exercise such powers and perform such duties as the Board of Directors or the State Warehousing Corporation may entrust or delegate to him, and (b) receive such salary and allowances as the State Warehousing Corporation may, in consultation with the Central Warehousing Corporation, and with the previous approval of the State Government, fix (4) The Board of Directors shall act on business principles having regard to public Interest and shall be guided by such instructions on questions of policy as may be given to them by the State Government or the Central Warehousing Corporation. (5) if any doubt arises as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy, or, if the State Government and the Central Warehousing Corporation give conflicting instructions, the matter shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision thereon shall be final. (6) The Directors of a State Warehousing Corporation, other than the Managing Director, shall be entitled to receive by way of remuneration such sums as may be prescribed. Provided that no official director shall be entitled to receive any remuneration other than any allowances admissible to him under the rules regulating his conditions of service. (7) The term of office of, and the manner of filling casual vacancies among Directors shall be such as may be prescribed”. 8. Provided that no official director shall be entitled to receive any remuneration other than any allowances admissible to him under the rules regulating his conditions of service. (7) The term of office of, and the manner of filling casual vacancies among Directors shall be such as may be prescribed”. 8. From a perusal of Section 20(1)(c) of the Act, it can be seen that it is the sole provision associated with appointment of Managing Director which has been scrupulously followed while appointing Sri.Anil S.Das as interim Managing Director. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the writ appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of appointment of Sri.Anil S.Das inasmuch as he has been appointed as an interim Managing Director and not a full fledged Managing Director. He continues as interim Managing Director in the light of interim directions. The Corporation as well as Sri.Anil S.Das are hand-in-gloves with each other and the writ appeal filed by the Corporation is absolutely unwarranted. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the Corporation is supporting Sri.Anil S.Das and wants him to continue as Managing Director. In fact, from the own admission of the Corporation that Sri.Anil S.Das is only an interim Managing Director, the writ appeal ought not have been filed. The writ appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost for misleading the court. 10. Heard both sides. 11. From the appointment order of Sri.Anil S.Das, it can be seen that he has been appointed purely on an interim basis as the Managing Director. The appointment of Sri.Anil S.Das cannot be treated as an appointment on regular basis. Only because of the interim order, he still continues as Managing Director. It cannot be permitted to go on for an indefinite period. Learned Single Judge has passed a reasoned and speaking order dealing with each and every aspect of the matter including the procedure to be followed before appointment, and thereafter came to the conclusion that the appointment of Sri.Anil S.Das is illegal and cannot be sustained. It cannot be permitted to go on for an indefinite period. Learned Single Judge has passed a reasoned and speaking order dealing with each and every aspect of the matter including the procedure to be followed before appointment, and thereafter came to the conclusion that the appointment of Sri.Anil S.Das is illegal and cannot be sustained. In any case, on the admission of both the parties, the appointment of Sri.Anil S.Das is not a regular appointment but in the nature of interim appointment till a regular candidate is selected for the post of Managing Director. 12. In view of the aforesaid, no fault can be found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Sri.Anil S. Das cannot be allowed to continue as interim Managing Director indefinitely. 13. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals filed by Sri.Anil S.Das and the State deserve to be dismissed. The respondent/Corporation is directed to take fresh steps to appoint a new regular Managing Director, in effective consultation with the Board of Directors of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation within two months from today, strictly in accordance with law, from amongst the eligible candidates based on merit only. Till the new regular Managing Director is appointed, Sri.Anil S.Das shall continue as interim Managing Director for two months. It is made clear that in case the Corporation does not invoke the exercise to appoint a regular Managing Director, the appointment of Sri.Anil S.Das as interim Managing Director shall not be extended under any circumstances. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld, however, without any costs. It is made clear that the interim order granted by this Court shall stand vacated after two months automatically.