TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antation sale and development of orchards on behalf of the owners, Cottages Agricultural land. The petitioner No. 1 has also initiated its food processing unit at NOIDA (U.P.) in the name of Paramount Foods for which it has got sanction for allotment of an industrial plot from NOIDA. The petitioner No. 1 is also in the field of information technology and software consultancy. Thus petitioner No. 1 has been in three types of business since its incorporation in the year 1996 viz. ( a ) Collective hi-brid, hi-tech agro-farming plantation projects, ( b ) Sale and purchase of agriculture land and related services and ( c ) I.T. and Software Consultancy. 4. The petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and Director of petitioner No. 1. 5. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that this petition is being filed in order to safeguard the interest of the shareholders and investors/joint venture associates, who have invested their hard earned money with petitioner No. 1, the interest of the individuals working for petitioner No. 1, and in order to prevent agro-plantation and other projects implemented by petitioner No. 1 from being destroyed/collapsed. It is alleged in paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hart giving the details is contained in paragraph 8 of the petition. 9. In paragraph 9 of the petition it is alleged that from the above figures it is evident that petitioner No. 1 is one of those companies which has been carrying on its business with prudence. The petitioner No. 1 had been returning the investment of its joint venture associates and striving hard and returning the investment of its investors as well as trying to salvage various schemes and projects which are underway. 10. In the month of November, 1997 the Central Government issued a press release making known its decision that various schemes through which instruments like agro bonds, plantation bonds etc. are issued would be treated as Collective Investment Schemes under the purview of the SEBI Act. Copy of the public notice issued by SEBI dated 18-12-1997 is annexed as Annexure 3 to the petition. The aforesaid notice states : "The Central Government has by a press release dated 19-11-1997 decided that an appropriate regulatory framework for regulating entities which issue instruments such as agro bonds, plantation bonds, etc. has to be put in place. The Government has decided that schemes through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is alleged in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that when the petitioner No. 1 and other Companies contacted the SEBI approved credit rating agencies they were informed by the said Agencies that the agencies were not having any guidelines from SEBI so that these agencies could rate the schemes of the companies. This position lasted for one and a half to two months. 13. It is alleged in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that this action of SEBI was followed by a number of deliberate and motivated press releases, public notices/news-items presenting generalised negative opinion about all the agro-plantation companies vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. This created a panic situation amongst the investors and they started approaching various companies including the petitioner for premature withdrawal of their investments. Thereafter the petitioner No. 1 circulated letters to all its investors/joint venture associates giving details about the prevailing condition. At the same time, to cut down the overheads the petitioner No. 1 closed down its branch offices. After consulting with the investors, the petitioner No. 1 informed all its investors/joint venture associates individ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... frame regulations contained in section 30 of the SEBI Act does not authorise SEBI to make regulations to regulate collective investment schemes, but confines the power to make regulations which may provide for the conditions subject to which certificate of registration is to be issued, the amount of fees to be paid for the certificate of registration, and the manner of suspension or cancellation of certificate of registration under section 30 states : " Power to make regulations. (1) The Board may, by notification, make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to carry out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely : ( a )the time and places of meetings of the Board and the procedure to be followed at such meetings under sub-section (1) of section 7 including quorum necessary for the transaction of business; ( b )the terms and other conditions of service of officers and employees of the Board under sub-section (2) of section 9; ( c )the matters relating to issue of capital, transfer of securities and ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecific objections of the petitioner to the impugned regulations as mentioned in paragraph 31 of the writ petition are : (1)The restriction imposed by regulation 70(1)( c ) that 50 per cent of the Director should be independent, is restricting the rights of the shareholders to appoint any individual to the office of Directors. The expression Independent Director has been explained to mean those Directors who are not associates of the persons operating the existing collective investment scheme. (2)Regulation 11( c ) which provides that appointment of directors shall be made with the prior approval of the trustees is again a restrictive clause which limits the rights of the shareholders to appoint any one as Director and it is thus violative of article 257 of the Companies Act. It may be mentioned that under section 32 of the SEBI Act the provisions of the Act shall not be in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Hence, it is alleged, it cannot be in derogation of Companies Act. Regulation 9( b ) provides that the Company should in its memorandum of association specify managing of collective investment scheme as one of its main objects. However, Regulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall remain suspended till then. Hence it is alleged that this is violative of article 19(1)( g ) of the Constitution. 23. It is alleged in paragraph 35 of the writ petition that the provisions in the impugned regulations for existing companies are impractical and impossible to be followed and the chances of safeguarding the interest of the existing investors have all faded, what to talk of future investors. If the existing companies are not rehabilitated, the chances of investors getting back their money will be totally lost. 24. Regulation 71(4) states that the Company shall after complying with the conditions of provisional registration under regulation 70 shall also comply with the conditions for seeking registration specified under regulation 9. Only then will the company become eligible for grant of certificate of registration under regulation 10. 25. It is alleged in paragraph 36 of the petition that the above regulation means that the SEBI is directing the company to suspend business with immediate effect until the registration is granted, thereby suspending the business indefinitely and certainly for a minimum period of two years. It is alleged that this is ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty of the Board to protect the interest of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market, by such measures as it thinks fit." Section 11(2) mentions certain specific powers of the SEBI, without prejudice to the generality of section 11(1). 28. In paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the securities market in India has grown tremendously over a period. A number of entities, incorporated or not, had come into existence which promised attractive returns to investments made with them and mobilised huge public funds on the pretext of high returns. Such entities utilized the funds collected by them for the purpose which had not been disclosed by them at the time of inviting their investments. This was causing not only loss to the public but also eroding the confidence of the investors. 29. In paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that it came to the notice of the Government of India that there were entities which were issuing instruments against the investment such as agro bonds, plantation bonds etc. by offering very high rates of returns which were not consistent with the normal returns i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hemes will send to SEBI the information within 21 days from 26-11-1997 containing the details of the terms and conditions of such schemes along with the funds raised through this scheme, promises or assurance or assured returns made in this scheme, and the names, details and background of promoters/sponsors. Copy of the Press Release dated 26-11-1997 is Annexure 2 to the counter-affidavit. 32. In paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that it came to the notice of the Central Government that some unscrupulous companies were floating collective investment schemes and alluring the gullible investors with promise of high returns although such returns were not commercially viable and were apprehended to be unrealistic. The Central Government thought it essential to look into the claims made by these companies to prevent exploitation of investors and to provide adequate safeguard to the investment made so that it should be properly utilized. With this object the Ministry of Environment and Forest of Central Government constituted an inter-departmental committee vide letter dated 17-4-1996 to study the growth rate and economics of plantations undertaken by private prom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure 1 to the counter-affidavit. 33. In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that as a consequence of the aforesaid Press Release by the Central Government the SEBI sought information regarding details of the schemes launched by the plantation companies, the amount collected from the public under the scheme and other relevant information to study whether the promises held out by these companies were realistic. SEBI also asked these companies to abide by the Code of advertisement framed by SEBI for investors protection. From the information gathered from the aforesaid companies it was found that the offer documents of these companies promised very high returns which was wholly unrealistic. Photocopy of such offer document of the petitioner company is Annexure 4 to the counter-affidavit. In this offer the petitioner company offered to issue bonds against the investments. They published that these bonds and investments were 100 per cent secured through advance post-dated cheques, and the returns therefrom were also tax-free. It was also mentioned that the investment will grow 75 times in 20 years while the principal amount is returned in first five years. Other such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the auditors that the company was repaying the matured deposits out of the fresh deposits received. The Directors of the company were arrested by the Crime Branch, Delhi police and special auditors were also appointed by the Delhi police. The report of the auditors mentioned that the post-dated cheques had bounced and the company issued promissory notes in place of cheques. However, the company s account in Punjab National Bank from which the post-dated cheques were issued to the investors was closed. The deposits taken from the investors were diverted to sister companies free of interest. The management utilized the funds of the investors for purchase of land in Maharashtra State in the name of promoters and directors of the companies or their relatives. In paragraph 27 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that according to the aforesaid audit report of about 35 companies SEBI found that the situation in almost all the plantation companies which were soliciting investments on the promise of very high returns was the same. The investment of the innocent poor public was in a state of a very high risk. SEBI considered it extremely urgent and necessary to save the innocent public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loying a large corpus of the funds so raised in activities akin to those of non-banking finance companies. Further, many companies were deploying funds in areas like real estate, resorts, golf courses, etc. The rating agencies also gave adverse comments on the accounting practices and methods which were followed by these entities. Many of the entities were found to be lacking in application of fundamental accounting principles while preparing their accounts. True copy of the Dave Committee Report submitted on 5-4-1999 is Annexure 12 to the counter- affidavit. Many points noted by the Dave Committee are mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Counter-Affidavit. These points show how malpractices were being done by the Companies on a large scale. 37. In para 40 of the Counter-Affidavit it is stated that the SEBI published the Regulations in the Draft Form on the basis of the recommendations of Dave Committee. The SEBI invited comments and objections of the general public, and the views of the general public were received which were considered by the SEBI and thereafter the impugned regulations were approved. 38. In para 43 of the Counter Affidavit it is denied that the impugned re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nary prudence. 43. It is alleged in para 52 of the Counter-Affidavit that the collective investment schemes are covered under section 11(2)( c ) of the SEBI Act and as such no separate notification was required for the said purpose. The Press release by the Government of India was only clarificatory in nature informing that units issued by plantation companies will be treated as collective investment schemes. It is wrong to say that SEBI acted in a most irresponsible manner. 44. In para 54 of the Counter-Affidavit it is stated that the expression "collective investment schemes" is a concept which was known throughout the world in financial circles. The Dave Committee in its report observed that "collective investment scheme" is a generic term, and therefore, would encapsulate within its fold various activities which have been found to have certain specific characteristics. It is alleged that the definition of collective investment schemes as inserted by the Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 1999 is substantially the same as mentioned in the Dave Committee report. The expression collective investment scheme though not initially defined under the Statute, was generally under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial institutions like IDBI, ICICI etc. They employ professional chartered accountants and financial analysts with rich and varied experience necessary to perform their duties. 47. In para 59 it is denied that all projects of plantation companies required long gestation periods. Some projects include raising of short term crops. In fact from the facts gathered by the SEBI the plantation companies were not generating any income, but were passing on the funds of the fresh investors to the old investors. In para 63 it is stated that while framing the regulations, SEBI had to take into account the interest of various groups including that of industry and the investors. The paramount consideration, however, was accorded to the protection of investors interest. 48. In para 70 it is stated that the requirement of Regulation 70(1)( c ) to have at least 50 per cent independent Directors on the Board is aimed at protecting the interest of investors and to ensure that the Boards of these companies which raise huge resources from the public are not packed with the friends and relatives of the promoters. This requirement of having at least 50 per cent of the directors to the independe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the present regulations require the appointment of trustees to be the custodian of public funds. Although the Trustee is appointed by the Collective Investment Management Company, the trustees act in a fiduciary capacity in respect of the trust property which in this case is raised by sale of units to the public at large by the collective investment management company, and in case the persons in charge of the affairs of the Company act in a manner which is detrimental to the interest of the investors, the trustees are duty bound to bring the same to the notice of the Board as well as the investors. 53. In para 78 it is stated that SEBI regulates various intermediaries in the capital market which were involved in raising of huge resources from the investors in general. Having regard to the high volumes and turnover in the capital market, it is essential that the person who is permitted to operate in the capital market is a person of high standard of integrity. SEBI has framed internal guidelines to determine whether an intermediary is a fit and proper person, and thus it cannot be said that there is absolute or unfettered discretions in SEBI while declaring whether a person is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given in section 11AA which has been introduced by the Security Laws (Amendment) Act, 1999 which is as follows: Collective investment scheme . (1) Any scheme or arrangement which satisfies the conditions referred to in sub-section (2) shall be a collective investment scheme. (2) Any scheme or arrangement made or offered by any company under which, "( i )the contribution, or payments made by the investors, by whatever name called, are pooled and utilized for the purposes of the scheme or arrangement; ( ii )the contributions or payments are made to such scheme or arrangement by the investors with a view to receive profits, income, produce or property, whether movable or immovable, from such scheme or arrangement; ( iii )the property, contribution or investment forming part of scheme or arrangement, whether identifiable or not is managed on behalf of the investors; ( iv )the investors do not have day-to-day control over the management and operation of the scheme or arrangement." 56. Shri S.S. Ray, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above definition requires pooling of resources, but the petitioner did not pool the resources of its investo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions made thereunder would apply because this does not involve dealing with securities and it is not a collective investment scheme. So far as this argument is concerned, we have already observed above that there was no such averment initially in the writ petition and it was later introduced by a corrective supplementary affidavit. This supplementary affidavit was filed after the arguments at the stage of final hearing had begun before us. No such ground had been taken initially nor any amendment application was filed nor any relief sought in this connection. The respondent SEBI has seriously disputed this averment of fact disclosed in the corrected supplementary affidavit. The SEBI admits that if it is a genuine sale or purchase transaction of land and the SEBI will not interfere with the same. All that the SEBI desires is that the petitioner and other parties doing this business should report this matter to the SEBI so that it can be verified whether it is a genuine transaction of sale or purchase of land or not. Moreover, if the decision of the SEBI on this issue is incorrect there is a right of appeal under section 20 of the SEBI Act. Hence we cannot see what grievance the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will prevail. However, this does not help the petitioner in any way, and at any event SEBI has amended Regulation 2(2) on 14-2-2000 wherein it was stated that the term Collective Investment Scheme will have the same meaning as in section 11AA. 61. As regards the submission of Shri Ray that the Regulations cannot be retrospective, we agree with learned Counsel for the petitioner that Regulations made under an Act cannot be retrospective unless the parent Act so permits vide State of Bihar v. K.K. Kalra [1997] 9 SCC 763. Vested rights of a company cannot be disturbed retrospectively by subordinate legislation vide Beggam v. State of A.P. [1998] 1 SCC 563; State of M.P. v. G.S. Dhall Flour Mills [1992] Suppl. 1 SCC 150; Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India [1999] 2 SCC 361; Pawan Alloys v. U.P. State Electricity Board [1997] 7 SCC 251 etc. Regulations are only delegated legislation, and unless permitted by the parent Act they cannot be retrospective. 62. However, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that neither the directive issued under section 16 of the SEBI Act ( vide Annexures 3 and 5 to the writ petition) nor the Regulations made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are in the interest of the investors. Under Regulation 12 the Board can reject the application if it is not satisfied about the conditions mentioned in Regulation 9, and this decision has to be communicated within 30 days. Regulation 13 places certain restrictions on the Collective Investment Management Company, and Regulation 14 mentions the obligations of such a Company. Under section 20 of the Act an appeal lies against the decision of the Board. We fail to see how any of these Regulations can be called retrospective. 64. The petitioner-company was admittedly operating before the impugned Regulations of 1999 were made. In view of section 12(1B), which came into force in 1995 it could continue its business of collective investment scheme only after getting a certificate of registration from the Board in accordance with the regulations. Hence, regulations had to be framed and the petitioner could continue its operations only after applying under Regulation 5 and obtaining a certificate under Regulation 12. If its application was rejected it could appeal under section 20. 65. As regards the public notice copy of which is Annexure 3 of the writ petition (and which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estment Schemes . In our opinion Parliament and SEBI have the legislative competence to frame the Act and Regulations as the subject-matter falls under Entries 43, 46 and 48 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Entry 43 of List I reads: "Incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations, including bankers, insurance and any financial corporations but not including co-operative societies". Entry 48 reads: "Stock exchanges and futures markets." In our opinion these entries in List I give legislative competence to Parliament to enact the SEBI Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act states that it is being enacted to protect the investors. The capital market has witnessed tremendous growth in recent times, characterised particularly by the increasing participation of the public, and hence, it was necessary to regulate the same so as to instill a sense of confidence in the public. 67. The impugned Regulations have been made under section 30 of the Act, and we find no illegality in the same. Their object is to protect the investors in Collective Investment Management Schemes, and this is a landable object. 68. However, even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpanies Act or other Acts, in our opinion the SEBI Act and the impugned Regulations are special laws and will prevail over the provisions of the Companies Act and other Acts which lay down the general law. It is well-settled that the special law prevails over the general law. Moreover, the Companies Act nowhere prohibits having 50 per cent independent directors. In the commercial scenario today where gullible investors are often duped this provision for having 50 per cent independent directors is a salutory provision. There is no doubt that the interest of investors needs to be safeguarded against unscrupulous persons because of whom a large number of people have lost their hard earned money all over the world. Even in the U.S.A. we have seen how persons in charge of certain companies e.g. Enron, Worldcom, etc. had by unscrupulous methods duped their shareholders and the general public and thus caused the loss of entire lives savings of a large number of people. It may be mentioned that one of the main reasons for the 1929 Wall Street slump in America and the Great Depression thereafter and in that country was that there was no effective Regulation of the securities market and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 8 SCC 655. 75. In fact the SEBI Act was enacted with the object to establish a Board to protect the interest of the investors in securities and to promote development of, and to regulate, the Securities Market and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 76. In fact section 11 of the SEBI Act casts a duty on the Board to protect the interest of the investors in securities and to promote the development of and to regulate the securities market, by such measures as it deems fit. Section 12(2)( c ) specifically provide that the Board can register and regulate the working of Collective Investment Schemes. The Rules and Regulations made by SEBI have to be placed before Parliament as mentioned in Section 31 of the SEBI Act. 77. It may be mentioned that Section 12 of the SEBI Act was amended in 1995 and Section 12(1B) was incorporated which specifically stated that no person can sponsor or cause to be sponsored or carry on any venture capital funds or collective investment schemes unless he obtained a certificate of registration from the Board in accordance with the Regulations. Thus after 1995, nobody could have carried on a collective investment scheme unless ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate Forest Departments; and the Committee strongly recommended that the SEBI should issue guidelines for the safety of such investors so that the precious money of the investors can be saved vide Paras 15, 16 and 18 and Annexures 3A 3B to the counter-affidavit. 80. An Expert Committee having representation from the relevant fields e.g. Government of India, SEBI, Consumer Fora, Representatives of the Industries etc. was thereupon set up under the Chairmanship of Dr. Dave, former Chairman of UTI, to draft and finalise the Regulations. On 28th January 1998, the Dave Committee held a meeting and desired that the existing Collective Investment Scheme should be allowed to continue to raise or mobilize moneys from the public provided that the instruments of such Collective Investment Scheme are rated by the Credit Rating Agencies and the schemes are insured. On the basis of these recommendations of the Dave Committee, the SEBI on 24-2-1998 in exercise of its powers under section 11B read with proviso to section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act issued a direction to the effect that all existing Collective Investment Schemes can mobilize money only after obtaining a rating from one of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... businessmen. 84. It may be mentioned that to test the reasonability of a restriction we have to see the subject-matter, the extent of restriction, the mischief which it seeks to check, etc. The reasonableness of the restriction has to be determined in an objective manner and has to be seen from the point of view of the interest of the general public and not from the point of view of the persons upon whom the restrictions are imposed vide Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar AIR 1985 SC 731 ( sic ). Moreover the impugned law cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case it operates harshly vide State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas AIR 1969 SC 634 ( vide para 52). As observed by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 873; D.K. Trivedi Son s case ( supra ); State of Madras v. Row 1952 SCR 597; Peerless General Finance Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India AIR 1992 SC 1033; Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1453 etc., the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed and the extent and urgency of the evil sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng collective investment schemes and alluring the gullible investors with promise of high returns although such returns were not commercially viable, and appeared to be unrealistic. The Central Government decided to prevent the exploitation of investors and provide adequate safeguard to the investment so that the investors may not suffer. Hence, the Central Government set up the Gangopadhyaya Committee. As stated in Paras 15 and 16 of the counter-affidavit the investors were attracted by the lucrative returns promised by these companies and there was mushrooming of several plantation companies with high promises without authenticity. The plantation companies set their unrealistic targets very high, and, hence, the Committee strongly felt a need for defining regulatory mechanism to safeguard the interest of investors and eliminate the fraudulent companies. The Committee noted that most of the companies do not have qualified personnel with forestry background for proper execution of a technical project dealing with forestry. There was no system to see that the funds of the depositors are invested properly. As stated in Paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit, these companies promised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. It has been said by no less a person than Holmes, J. that the Legislature should be allowed some play in the joints,because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait-jacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with greater play in the joints has to be allowed to the Legislature. The Court should feel more inclined to give judicial deference to legislative judgment in the field of economic regulation than in other areas where fundamental human rights are involved. Nowhere has this admonition been more felicitously expressed that in Morey v. Doud 354 US 457 where Frankfurter, J.said in his inimitable style: "In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. The Legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. The Courts have only the power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Government to evolve fiscal policy in the public interest and to act upon the same." It must be remembered that certain matters are by their nature such as best be left to experts in the field. This Court does not have the technical and administrative expertise in this respect. In the words of Chief Justice Neely: "I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a Judge. I am not an accountant, electrical engineer, financier, banker, stock broker or system management analyst. It is the height of folly to expect Judges intelligently to review a 5000 page record addressing the intricacies of a public utility operation. It is not the function of a Judge to act as a super board, or with the zeal of a pedantic school master substituting its judgment for that of the administrator." In our opinion there should be judicial restraint in fiscal and economic regulatory measures. The State should not be hampered by the Court in such measures unless they are clearly illegal or unconstitutional. All administrative decisions in the economic and social spheres are essentially ad hoc and experimental. Since economic matters are extremely complicated, this inevitably entails spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
