9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner to order an enquiry into the affairs of a public limited company. Analysis: The petitioners, a public limited company, challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order for an enquiry into their functioning, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority under the Companies Act, 1956, to interfere in their affairs. The Deputy Advocate-General attempted to justify the action by claiming the Deputy Commissioner could order the probe as the head of the District Administration. However, the court found the order void as the Deputy Commissioner did not have the power to initiate a probe into the company's affairs. The court emphasized that any investigation into a company's affairs must adhere to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and cannot be arbitrarily ordered by a public official outside the statutory framework. The court rejected the argument that the Deputy Commissioner, as a district official, had unlimited powers to issue such orders, emphasizing that no public servant is above the rule of law and statutory authority limits their actions. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner's order for an enquiry into the company's affairs was void ab initio and invalidated it. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the petitioners were awarded costs. Additionally, the court directed the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, to return the company's documents within one month of the court order's submission.
|
