9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initial takeover order dated 12th Aug. 1977. 2. Requirement for a reasoned order by the Central Government. 3. Validity of the extension order dated 11th Aug. 1982 without prior hearing. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Initial Takeover Order Dated 12th Aug. 1977 The petitioners challenged the initial takeover order on the grounds that the direction of the High Court in the earlier writ petition was not followed, as the person who passed the order affirming the takeover did not hear the petitioner company, and the hearing was given by a different person. The Court examined this contention by referring to the principles of administrative law. It was noted that the usual practice in government departments is that the Minister in charge takes assistance from subordinate officials. The Court cited several precedents, including Local Government Board v. Arlidge and Pradyut Kumar v. C. J. of Calcutta, to support the view that the hearing can be conducted by an official, and the final decision can be taken by the Minister after considering the report and evidence collected by the official. The Court concluded that there was no breach of natural justice as the Minister had honestly applied his mind to the relevant material and the decision reached was his own. 2. Requirement for a Reasoned Order by the Central Government The petitioners contended that the Central Government did not pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner, and it is not open to the Court to gather the reasons from the notings in the file. The Court assumed that a reasoned order is necessary under Section 18AA after hearing the objections. Initially, no reasoned order was communicated, but upon the Court's direction, a reasoned order was passed and communicated to the petitioner company. The Court noted that the reasons in the final order were the same as those in the file notings, which formed the basis of the Minister's decision. Thus, the contention that no reasoned order was passed did not survive. 3. Validity of the Extension Order Dated 11th Aug. 1982 Without Prior Hearing The petitioners argued that the extension order for a further period of six months was invalid as no prior hearing was given. The Court held that no prior hearing is necessary before passing an order of extension under Section 18AA(2) read with Section 18A(2). The Court reasoned that the owner of the undertaking had already been heard at the time of the initial takeover and had the opportunity to apply for cancellation of the takeover under Section 18F. Therefore, there was no implied duty on the Central Government to hear the owner again for the extension of the takeover period. Conclusion The petition was dismissed on all counts. The Court found that the initial takeover was valid, the Central Government had complied with the requirement for a reasoned order, and no prior hearing was necessary for the extension of the takeover period. The security amount was ordered to be refunded to the petitioners.
|
