9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Lawful removal of the appellant from the management of the business. 2. Validity of the order of removal made by the Managing Officer-cum-Deputy Custodian. 3. Entitlement to seek a writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 4. Final allotment of the business in favor of the appellant by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Detailed Analysis: 1. The first issue in the case was whether the appellant was lawfully removed from the management of the business by the order of the respondent no. 1. The appellant argued that the Custodian had no power to remove a Manager once appointed under the 1950 Act. However, the court held that the power of appointment also implies the power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed, as per Section 16 of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, the removal of the appellant was lawful as an incident to the power of appointment. 2. The second issue raised was the validity of the order of removal made by the Managing Officer-cum-Deputy Custodian under the 1954 Act. The appellant contended that this officer had no authority to cancel the appointment of a Manager. The court clarified that even if the Managing Officer under the 1954 Act was not the proper authority, the provisions of the 1950 Act were still in force. Thus, the Deputy Custodian had the authority to cancel the appointment, making the order legally valid. 3. The third issue involved the appellant's entitlement to seek a writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The court explained that a writ of mandamus can only be granted when there is a statutory duty imposed on the officer concerned, which was not the case here as the appointment of the appellant was contractual in nature. Therefore, the duty falling upon a public servant out of a contract cannot be enforced through a writ under Art. 226. 4. The final issue addressed whether there was a final allotment of the business in favor of the appellant by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The appellant argued that two letters indicated a final allotment, but the court disagreed, stating that the terms and conditions of allotment were not finalized, and there was no concluded contract of sale. Consequently, the appellant had no legal right to the business, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the lawful removal of the appellant from management, validating the order made by the Deputy Custodian, denying the entitlement to seek a writ of mandamus, and determining that there was no final allotment of the business in favor of the appellant.
|
