9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 15A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. 2. Formation of requisite opinion under Section 15A. 3. Violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Constitutionality of Sections 15A and 18FA under Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. Allegation of mala fide application. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 15A: The applicants (Union of India) sought permission to investigate the possibility of restarting the industrial undertaking of the 1st respondent-company under Section 15A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The respondents contended that Section 15A did not apply as the company had ceased business since October 1967. The court held that Section 15A is applicable to a company being wound up and whose business is not continued, irrespective of when the business ceased. The court emphasized that the phrase "is not being continued" denotes a state or condition existent at the time when the opinion is formed, and the section contemplates investigating the possibility of restarting a closed undertaking. 2. Formation of Requisite Opinion: The respondents argued that the Central Government did not form the requisite opinion on relevant materials. The court examined the affidavit-in-rejoinder which detailed the materials considered, including the mill's production capacity, loss of production, unemployment of 4,000 workers, potential foreign exchange earnings, and the condition of machinery. The court found these materials relevant and sufficient for forming the requisite opinion, thus fulfilling the condition precedent under Section 15A. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The respondents claimed that the opinion was formed without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The court noted that Section 15A requires a subjective opinion by the Central Government and does not mandate a hearing for the respondents. Since the investigation's purpose was to ascertain the feasibility of restarting the undertaking without affecting any vested rights, the court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice. 4. Constitutionality under Article 14: The respondents challenged the constitutionality of Sections 15A and 18FA, arguing that they conferred unguided and unfettered discretion on the Central Government, lacked guidelines, and allowed for discriminatory application. The court held that the preamble of the Act and the specific provisions in Section 15A provided sufficient guidelines. The court also rejected the argument that different procedures under Sections 15 and 15A led to discrimination, as the investigations under these sections cater to different situations and purposes. The court found no violation of Article 14. 5. Allegation of Mala Fide Application: The respondents alleged that the application was made with an ulterior motive to dispossess the private receiver and at the behest of the State Government. The court found no substance in this claim, noting that the Central Government had relevant materials, formed the requisite opinion, and acted within the scope of Section 15A. The court emphasized that the application was made for investigating the possibility of restarting the mills in the public interest and not for any extraneous reasons. Conclusion: The court granted the permission sought by the applicants under Section 15A, directing respondents to facilitate the investigation. The respondents were also ordered to pay costs quantified at Rs. 750. The court allowed the Central Government to proceed with appointing investigators but stayed the commencement of the investigation for eight days.
|
