9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sub-section (1) of section 18AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, authorising the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Patna, to take-over the management of the whole of the said industrial undertaking, namely, Messrs Motipur Sugar Factory Ltd. Motipur District Muzaffarpur, Bihar, for a period of two years commencing from the date of the publication of said order in the Official Gazette and the subsequent extension of the period of management have been challenged by the petitioners. It has been contended by the petitioners that in or about June, 1977, the Bihar State Legislature promulgated the Bihar Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1976, under which certain sugar factories mentioned in the Schedule to the said Act vested in the Government of Bihar and/or the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. In the said Schedule, the petitioner company was not included but subsequently, by a notification issued in October, 1978, the name of the petitioner company was included in the Schedule. By such inclusion, the Motipur factory was purported to be taken over by the Bihar Government. The petitioners challenged the vires, legality and validity of the said Bihar Sug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the same. The petitioners have also contended that on November 10, 1980, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners, one Mr. A. K. Sinha had assumed charge of the said undertaking as general manager. On November 15, 1980, the petitioner received another order dated November 11, 1980, issued by respondent No. 4 claiming to be an authorised person under the said Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. It was stated in the said order that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 had ceased to remain as directors of the said company under section 18B of the said Act. A copy of the said order has been annexed to the writ petition being marked annexure 'D'. The petitioners have contended that neither the petitioners nor any of the persons of the said undertaking had brought about any situation likely to affect the sugar factory either by encumbrancing the assets of the said undertaking or by diversion of funds or otherwise. It is contended that the Central Government issued the said order without any application) of mind and without any consideration of relevant materials and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to place the relevant materials. It is also contended that the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egulation) Act, 1951, was legal and justified, such taking over of possession was for a limited period and after the expiry of the said period, further extension of such management cannot be, made without giving the petitioner company and/or its directors all reasonable opportunities of being heard. As such, extension has been purported to be made without deciding the necessity of such extension of management after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner company and/or its directors and/or principal officers, the purported extension after the expiry of two years' period from the date of initial taking over of management under section 18AA must , in any event, be held to be illegal and void and the respondents should be directed to forthwith hand over possession of the said factory to the petitioners with all documents and papers in their custody. The petitioners have also contended that during their management, the respondents have not been taking appropriate steps for running the said factory properly and the plants and machineries are also not being maintained or repaired properly. The respondents are incurring heavy losses due to inefficient and improper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court may take into consideration the contentions to be raised by the petitioners. Mr. Bose has, therefore, submitted that it will be a futile exercise on the part of this court to consider the respective contentions of the parties on merits and to come to a decision on merits. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd., has also supported Mr. Bose on the said contention about the maintainability of the writ petition before this court and it has also been contended by Mr. Banerjee that the memo containing the order of taking over charge of the said Motipur Sugar Factory since issued by the Joint Secretary, Mr. R. N. Chopra, was not issued to the petitioner at the Calcutta address by the Central Government; but the chairman-cum-managing director of the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. issued a memo informing about such decision of taking over the management at the Calcutta address of the managing director and such communication was made by way of abundant caution for ensuring that all concerned should get sufficient notice about the said order passed under section 18AA. But simply because such memo was issued at Calcutta address and/or a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd (b) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The said order concerned the factory in Dalmia Nagar in South Bihar. It was alleged by the respondents in the said case that no part of the cause of action or relief claimed in the petition had arisen within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal and none of the respondents had also resided within the State of West Bengal and no records relating to the subject-master of the petition were within the State. It appears that in support of the said decision, a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Purtabpur Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner, AIR 1969 All 105, was also cited on behalf of the respondents and also a decision of this court in Samarendranath Roy v. State of Bengal [1967] 71 CWN 592 was cited in support of the contention that the writ petition was not maintain able before this court. It appears that a reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532. The learned judge in the said Civil Rule No. 5957(W) of 1968 has held that where the cause of action in its entirety or part of it arises within the jurisdiction of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court made in the case of Serajuddin and Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1971 Cal 414. It has been held in the said decision that where an order as to grant and revocation of a mining lease was served within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and part of the cause of action had arisen within that jurisdiction, the said High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. In answer to the said contentions raised by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents have relied on an unreported Bench decision of this court made in FMA No. 662 of 1982 ( Union of India v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. ) . In the said case, the writ petitioners challenged the propriety of fixation of retention price of white printing paper at Rs. 4,200 per metric tonne. The said order of retention price was passed under the Paper (Control) Order, 1979, and such fixation under the control order was made by the Central Government. The question about the maintainability of the writ petition before this court for challenging the said retention price by the writ petitioners came up for consideration before the appeal court in the said FA4A No. 662 of 1982 arising out of an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction the cause of action arises irrespective of the fact that the authority against whom the writ is issued is situated outside its territorial limits. It has been further held that the residence of the plaintiff at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction if he is not a party to the cause of action. In a writ petition, every fact which would be necessary for a party to prove right, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court, constitutes the cause of action. As the entire cause of action in the said case accrued in Bihar, the sugar factory being situated there and the price fixed by the central orders having affected the same in Bihar, the writ petition is not maintainable. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, how ever, submitted that the decision of this court made in F.M.A. No. 662 of 1982 in the real sense supports the case of the petitioners. The appeal court in the said case has held that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because there was no averment that sale of white paper was made in the State of West Bengal and any stock of white paper was kept in West Bengal. But, in the instant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent parts of India wherefrom some business transactions may be effected concerning the said company, but the existence of such branch offices in different parts of India will not be the decisive and governing factor for conferring jurisdiction. In the facts of the case, there was no manner of doubt that the management, of Motipur Sugar Factory in Bihar was sought to be taken over pursuant to an order passed under section 18AA and other consequential orders passed thereafter. All such orders were passed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Simply because a copy of the order has been forwarded by the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. to the managing director or other directors at Calcutta, it cannot be held that a part of the cause of action has arisen in Calcutta and, as such, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no necessity to consider the various contentions raised by the petitioners, inter alia , to the effect that there was no justification for passing the said order under section 18AA and the said order was passed on non-application of mind to the relevant facts and by taking into considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
