9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated November 8, 1955. 2. Validity of the amending order dated November 7, 1956. 3. Bona fides of the appointment of the authorised Controller. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Dated November 8, 1955: The petitioners challenged the order dated November 8, 1955, on the grounds that it did not fulfill the essential requirements of Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The petitioners argued that the Central Government could not rationally form the opinion that the industrial undertaking was being managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest because the authorised Controller had been in charge since December 18, 1952, with a minor break. The Court, however, found that the Central Government had sufficient materials to form the opinion that the industrial undertaking was being mismanaged, given the ongoing litigation and disputes among the Directors and Managing Agents. The Court held that the Central Government's decision to take over the management was justified and the order was valid. 2. Validity of the Amending Order Dated November 7, 1956: The petitioners contended that the extension of the period from one year to two years was not authorized by Section 18A of the Act or Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The Court examined Section 21, which allows for the amendment of orders in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as the original order. The Court concluded that the amending order was valid as it complied with the requirements of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and Section 18A of the Act. The conditions for the original order were still in effect, and there was no need for a fresh investigation or new evidence of mismanagement. 3. Bona Fides of the Appointment of the Authorised Controller: The petitioners argued that the appointment of Kedar Nath Khetan as the authorised Controller was not bona fide, citing his involvement in the disputes and an injunction against him. The Court held that the selection of the authorised Controller was within the Central Government's discretion and presumed that the Government acted in the best interest of the industry. The Court found no evidence of ulterior motives or bad faith in the appointment and concluded that the appointment was made to achieve the objectives of the Act. Separate Judgment by Sarkar, J.: Sarkar, J., agreed with the majority on most points but differed on the interpretation of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. He opined that the conditions referred to in Section 21 are those to which the order must be subject, not the conditions for the initial exercise of power. He concluded that the amending order was valid as it complied with the condition that the order should not exceed five years, as specified in Section 18A(2) of the Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that both the order dated November 8, 1955, and the amending order dated November 7, 1956, were valid in law. The petitioners failed to establish any violation of their fundamental rights, and the petition was dismissed with costs in favor of the Union of India. The authorised Controller, who intervened at his own risk, was to bear his own costs.
|
