9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the respondent to issue directions under Article 101(1) of the Articles of Association of the Apparel Export Promotion Council. 2. Autonomy of the Apparel Export Promotion Council and the role of the executive committee. 3. Validity of the impugned directions issued by the Central Government. 4. Alleged infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the respondent to issue directions under Article 101(1) of the Articles of Association of the Apparel Export Promotion Council: The primary issue in this writ petition is whether the respondent has the jurisdiction to issue the impugned directions dated July 12, 1991, to the petitioner council under Article 101(1) of the Articles of Association of the Apparel Export Promotion Council. The council was incorporated as a non-profit organization under Section 25 of the Companies Act, primarily to promote the export of garments manufactured in India. Article 101(1) allows the Central Government to give directions to the council regarding the exercise and performance of its functions in matters involving national/public interest. However, the petitioner contends that the Central Government cannot issue directions concerning internal management matters such as staff control, which are under the purview of the executive committee. 2. Autonomy of the Apparel Export Promotion Council and the role of the executive committee: The council's Articles of Association provide for an executive committee, which includes elected members and nominees of the Central Government. The executive committee is responsible for managing the council's affairs, including staff control, as per Articles 57, 58, and 91. The petitioner argues that the executive committee functions like a board of directors and has the prerogative to administer the council's affairs, including staff transfers and disciplinary actions. The impugned directions by the Central Government, which divest the executive committee of its powers to manage staff, are alleged to be illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. Validity of the impugned directions issued by the Central Government: The petitioner alleges that the impugned directions are invalid as they are made without jurisdiction and violate the provisions of the Companies Act. The directions are purportedly issued in public interest but are alleged to interfere with the internal management of the council. The petitioner contends that the Central Government can only issue directions related to the council's main function of promoting exports and cannot take over the management of the executive committee. The impugned directions are also alleged to be arbitrary and capricious, violating the principles of natural justice. 4. Alleged infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner claims that the impugned directions violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The directions are alleged to be arbitrary and without any material basis, infringing the petitioner's right to manage its affairs as per the Articles of Association. The petitioner also argues that the Central Government's actions are contrary to the Import Policy 1992-97, which provides that Export Promotion Councils should be autonomous and regulate their own affairs. Judgment Summary: The court examined the Articles of Association and the provisions of the Companies Act, concluding that the impugned directions issued by the Central Government were without jurisdiction. The court held that Article 101(1) allows the Central Government to give directions in matters involving national/public interest but does not empower it to take over the control of the staff, which is the prerogative of the executive committee. The court found that the directions interfered with the autonomy of the council and were arbitrary, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the impugned directions were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
|
