2001 (7) TMI 1210 - HC - Companies Law

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction without hearing petitioners and other unions; Violation of principle of natural justice; Consideration of statements made by unions; Maintainability of writ petition due to alternative remedy under section 25 of Sick Industrial Companies Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on the grounds of not providing a hearing to the petitioners and other unions as required by Regulation 20 of BIFR Regulations, 1987. The petitioner's counsel argues that the order was passed without giving an opportunity for a hearing, despite indications of a next hearing in a previous order. The petition seeks the order to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Board for a fresh decision after providing a hearing to the concerned parties.

2. Counsel for respondent Nos. 8, 9, and 15 supports the petitioner's argument, emphasizing the violation of the principle of natural justice due to the absence of a hearing before the impugned order was passed. It is contended that the order should be set aside.

3. Counsel for respondent No. 17 highlights that the Board did not adequately consider the statements made by the union or written statements submitted. It is argued that the matter should be remanded to the Board for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a proper hearing to the unions.

4. Counsel for Coal India and Eastern Coalfields India Limited argues that the appeal under section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act provides an alternative remedy, making the writ petition not maintainable. It is contended that the provision in Regulation 20 does not mandate a hearing unless requested by the parties, and in this case, a hearing was conducted where submissions were made without constraints.

5. The petitioner's counsel rebuts, stating that there is evidence to show that a proper hearing was not provided, affecting the use of evidence by the petitioners. It is argued that the absence of a hearing violates natural justice and necessitates a referral back to the Board for a rehearing.

6. Respondent counsels support the petitioner's arguments in the reply.

7. The court hears all counsels at length before proceeding with the analysis.

8. A preliminary objection is raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy under section 25. The court decides to first assess the merits of the case before delving into the alternative remedy issue.

9. The court examines the sequence of events, noting that the petitioners had submitted written statements and participated in previous hearings. The Board had allowed submissions from all unions, and details of statements were recorded. However, certain unions raised concerns about not receiving Form AA as directed. The court observes the procedures followed by the Board based on the order dated 30-8-2000.

10. Regulation 20, sub-paragraph (6), outlines the process for requesting a hearing, indicating that it is not mandatory unless requested by interested parties. The discretion to provide a hearing lies with the Board.

11. The court finds that in this case, a hearing was conducted, and submissions were made by the petitioners and other unions. There is no evidence to suggest a request for further hearing as per Regulation 20.

12. The court tentatively concludes that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice based on the documents presented. The matter is kept open for decision in the appeal process under section 25.

13. The court emphasizes that interference through writ jurisdiction is warranted only in cases of fundamental legal principle violations or flagrant breaches of natural justice. Citing relevant legal precedents, the court sets the standard for invoking writ jurisdiction.

14. Given the findings, the court determines that there was no violation of fundamental legal principles or natural justice in this case. The decision is made tentatively for the purpose of the writ petition.

15. The court decides not to invoke writ jurisdiction due to the availability of the alternative remedy under section 25, dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable.

16. The court emphasizes the importance of the alternative remedy provided under section 25 and dismisses the writ petition accordingly.

17. The court directs that if an appeal is filed and delay is sought to be condoned, the appellate authority should condone the delay and decide the appeal promptly, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties.

18. The court instructs the timely provision of a certified copy of the order if requested.

19. The petition is dismissed, concluding the judgment.

← Previous Next →