9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Government's order under Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. 2. Requirement of supplying the Investigating Committee's report to the Company before taking action under Section 18A. 3. Compliance with the principles of natural justice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Government's Order under Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951: The appeal arose from a petition challenging the validity of an order dated 24 November 1970, by which the Government of India appointed the Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd. as the authorized controller of the Company for five years under Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The Supreme Court upheld the Government's order, noting that the Company had been suffering significant financial difficulties, resulting in the closure of its mill and substantial losses. The Court found that the Government was within its rights to appoint an investigating body under Section 15 of the Act and subsequently take over the management under Section 18A, as the Company was being managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest. 2. Requirement of Supplying the Investigating Committee's Report to the Company: The appellants contended that the Government should have supplied a copy of the Investigating Committee's report to the Company and provided a hearing before taking action under Section 18A. The Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice do not necessitate a fixed procedure and that the appellants had already been given a reasonable opportunity to present their case during the investigation. The Court emphasized that the appellants were aware of the investigation's scope and the potential consequences, including the Government's intention to appoint an authorized controller. The Court concluded that the non-disclosure of the report did not cause any prejudice to the appellants, as they had ample opportunity to make representations against the proposed take-over. 3. Compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice: The Court addressed the broader issue of whether the rules of natural justice were observed in this case. It affirmed that the principles of natural justice apply to administrative orders and proceedings, emphasizing the need for fairness and reasonable opportunity to present one's case. The Court noted that the appellants were given a full hearing during the investigation and had ongoing communication with the Government, including opportunities to secure financial assistance to avoid the take-over. The Court found no denial of natural justice, as the appellants were fully aware of the grounds for the Government's action and had made all possible representations. The Court also referenced the case of Local Government Board v. Arlidge, affirming that the non-disclosure of the report was not a violation of natural justice, given the circumstances. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Delhi High Court's order. The Court held that the Government's action under Section 18A was valid, the principles of natural justice were adequately observed, and the non-disclosure of the Investigating Committee's report did not prejudice the appellants. The Court directed that each party bear its own costs.
|
