IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1356 OF 2003 Brij Gopal Daga .. Petitioner V/s Union of India and Ors ... Respondents Mr.B.G.Daga, Petitioner in person Mr.R.Raghuwanshi,ASG with D.A.DUBE for Respondent no.1 Mr.C.U.Singh Sr.Counsel with Mr.D.D.Juvekar i/b Humranwala & Co. for Respondent for Respondent no.2 Mr.Chirag Balsara i/b Thakore Jariwala and Associate for Respondent no.3 Mr.Shyam Mehta a/o Mr.Mihir A.Mody and Mr.Pushkar Bavare i/b K.Ashar and Co. for Respondent nos 4 to 6 CORAM:BILAL NAZKI, AND A.P.BHANGALE,JJ DATE: APRIL 25, 2008 P.C.:- 1. This petition has been filed in the year 2003. We have heard the Petitioner, who is appearing in person. the Petitioner was appointed as an Executive Director and Managing Director of Respondent No.2 i.e. Central Depository Service (India) Limited. He was removed by a Resolution of the Share holders passed on 13-6-2003. Initially, he had been appointed on 1-11-2001 for a period of 3 years. Subsequently, his term was extended till 31-10-2006 as a Managing Director. 2. Unfortunately, this case could not be taken up earlier although the petition had been filed in the year 2003 itself. Now, if this court goes into the legality of the Resolution or otherwise, no relief can be granted to him because term of the Petitioner came to an end on 31-10-2006. We are conscious of the fact that the Managing Director cannot continue to hold charge against the wishes of Share holders of the company. Therefore, this court is leaving this question unaddressed. 3. But, the Petitioner has contended that explanatory statement pursuant to Section 173 of the Companies Act put before Extra Ordinary General Body Meeting accord a stigma for him as he had put more than 40 years of unblemished service in financial sector and because of this explanatory statement his career got tarnished. The allegations were made against him which were baseless. He has taken us to explanatory statement and imputations made against him based upon the enquiry having been conducted by UTICA. It is admitted case of the parties that enquiry conducted by UTI was conducted at the back of the Petitioner and at no point of time the Petitioner was either called for enquiry or his explanation was sought on any of the allegations which were levelled against him by some of the share holders and which were based on some of the press reports. In such a situation normally we would not deal with this contention as the said cause should have gone to appropriate court under the provisions of Companies Act. But after going through the explanatory statement and remarks, which imputed corresponding stigma upon the petitioner, had been prepared on the basis of the enquiry which has been conducted behind his back, we feel that he deserves protection under Article 14 of Constitution of India. 4. Therefore, we hold that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner in the explanatory statement may be taken to have been, prima facie view of authors of the explanatory statement and should not be considered to be a stigma of whatsoever nature to the Petitioner’s career. 5. With these observations writ petition is disposed of. ( BILAL NAZKI,J ) ( A.P.BHANGALE,J )