9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1527 - HC - Indian LawsRevaluation of 21 sugar mills which have been sold afresh by an independent agency for the purpose of proceeding with disinvestment - HELD THAT - If we record a finding in respect of disposal of the application then we find that such disposal of an application will lead to the decision virtually on merit. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that petitions should be heard and disposed of finally. Apart from it a coordinate Bench of this Court presided over by Hon ble the Chief Justice in HIMANSHU SONKAR P. I. L. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. SUGAR CANE DEVT. 30 ORS. 2014 (12) TMI 1369 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has passed the order to the effect that the parties are directed to complete their pleadings by 12.01.2015 so the hearing before the assigned Bench granted roster can proceed with the final hearing in the matter. In the case of KUSHUM LATA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. 2006 (7) TMI 729 - SUPREME COURT the apex Court while dealing with the issue of maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation laying down the principles for maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation provided certain guidelines and norms which have been laid by the Court from time to time and thereafter held that the person who has filed the petition though he was a tenderer and was questioning the legality of the auction being a party the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition. The judicial propriety demands that we should not indulge into a field which is not otherwise permissible under law. The judicial discipline would be to relegate the parties to the apex Court where the Special Leave Petition is pending for adjudication in accordance with law. But so far the question of entertaining these writ petitions at this stage in the present facts and circumstances of the case is concerned we do not find appropriate to adjudicate the issue on merit. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 2009. 2. Legitimacy of the privatization and sale of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited (UPSSCL) units. 3. Appropriateness of the Swiss Challenge Method for the sale of sugar mills. 4. Allegations of fraud and misleading the court by the petitioner. 5. Judicial propriety in entertaining the writ petitions given the pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 2009: The petitions challenged the legislative competence of the State in enacting the Amendment Act, 2009, specifically Sections 3-C and 3-D, which pertained to the closure of scheduled undertakings or sugar mills. The High Court struck down these sections as ultra vires, lacking legislative competence, and automatically nullified all actions based on these provisions. The other provisions of the Amendment Act were upheld as intra-vires. 2. Legitimacy of the Privatization and Sale of UPSSCL Units: The petitions contested the State Government's decision to privatize and sell the sugar mills, arguing it was prejudicial to the interests of the employees and violated existing statutes and the Constitution. The High Court had previously approved the process of slump sale under the Swiss Challenge Method, finding no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the State's decision. The Supreme Court's interim orders ensured that any action taken by the Government would be subject to the final adjudication of the appeal. 3. Appropriateness of the Swiss Challenge Method for the Sale of Sugar Mills: The petitioners argued that the valuation of the sugar mills was flawed and the Swiss Challenge Method was erroneous. However, the High Court had earlier upheld the Swiss Challenge Method, finding it a valid and acceptable democratic method for public-private joint ventures. The Supreme Court's interim orders further protected the interests of the appellants, making any sale subject to the final decision of the appeal. 4. Allegations of Fraud and Misleading the Court by the Petitioner: The petitioner was accused of misleading the Supreme Court by not disclosing the pending litigation and the High Court's decision. The petitioner incorrectly listed the names of the judges and omitted the Special Leave Petition details, which could have led to the writ petition being dismissed. The High Court emphasized that fraud renders any judgment, decree, or order a nullity, referencing cases like A.V. Papayya Sastry v. State of A.P. and Raju Ramsingh Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar. 5. Judicial Propriety in Entertaining the Writ Petitions Given the Pending SLP: The High Court noted that the issues raised in the current petitions had already been adjudicated and were pending before the Supreme Court in the SLP. The principle of constructive res judicata applied, preventing the re-litigation of the same issues. The Court emphasized judicial propriety and discipline, stating that it should not interfere in matters already under the Supreme Court's consideration. The Court cited several cases, including Soma Isolux NH One Tollway Private Limited v. Harish Kumar Puri and others, to support its stance on judicial restraint in policy matters and economic reforms. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, citing the pending SLP before the Supreme Court and the principle of constructive res judicata. The Court found no merit in re-adjudicating issues already decided by a coordinate bench and emphasized the need for judicial propriety and discipline. The petitions were dismissed, reaffirming the validity of the Swiss Challenge Method and the State's decision to privatize the sugar mills, subject to the Supreme Court's final adjudication.
|
