SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, B V Nagarathna, JJ.
National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No 229 of 2014
Decided On : 18-11-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, 32 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Companies Act, 1913 – Companies Act 2013 – Section 47, 134(2), Companies Act 1956 – Section 617 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Metal Corporation of India (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1966 – Section 12 – Nationalisation Act 1976 – Section 4 – Metal Corporation (Nationalisation and Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 1976 – Trade Unions Act 1926 – Remedies for enforcement – Irregularities in bidding process – Government Company – Constitutional validity of Ordinance – Short title and commencement – Domestic demand for zinc and lead – An organization called National Confederation of Officers Association1[“Confederation”] has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of Constitution – Confederation, which is a trade union registered under Trade Unions Act 1926, is joined in these proceedings by three other petitioners, including a former employee of Hindustan Zinc Limited2[“HZL”] – Members of Confederation are, or have been, employees of public sector undertakings – Their grievance in these proceedings arises from Union Government’s disinvestment of its shareholding in HZL, fourth respondent – Held, Accordingly, Court hold that summary dismissal of an earlier petition under Article 32 of Constitution does not bar present writ petition on grounds of res judicata as there has been no substantive decision on merits of issues – Decision in Centre for Public Interest Litigation (supra) does not apply to the present facts because HZL had ceased to be a government company, at stage of disinvestment which is in challenge – Hence, Union Government’s decision to disinvest 29.54 per cent of its residual shareholding in HZL is not interdicted by principles laid down by this Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation (supra) – SOVL has stated before Court that it is not exercising its second call option under Share Purchase Agreement – Union Government has stated through Solicitor General that residual shareholding shall be divested in open market and shall take place in accordance with rules and regulations of SEBI to ensure that best price is realized for sale of shareholding; and there is sufficient material for registration of a regular case in relation to 26 per cent disinvestment of HZL by Union Government in 2002 – CBI is directed to register a regular case and proceed in accordance with law – Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
| A Introduction | 3 |
| B Submissions of Counsel | 9 |
| C Res Judicata and PILs | 22 |
| D The decision in Centre for Public Litigation | 29 |
| E CBI’s preliminary enquiry | 45 |
| F Conclusion | 61 |
A Introduction
1. An organization called the National Confederation of Officers Association1[“Confederation”] has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Confederation, which is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926, is joined in these proceedings by three other petitioners, including a former employee of Hindustan Zinc Limited2[“HZL”]. The members of the Confederation are, or have been, employees of public sector undertakings. Their grievance in these proceedings arises from the Union Government’s disinvestment of its shareholding in HZL, the fourth respondent. According to the petitioners, HZL is not a loss incurring unit and the disinvestment does not sub-serve public interest. Parliament acquired the undertaking by the Metal Corporation (Nationalisation and Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 19763[“Nationalisation Act 1976”]. In pursuance of its acquisition, the undertaking came to be vested in a government company. HZL is stated to be a ‘mini-navratna’ company with a cash liquidity resource of over Rs 20,000 crores. According to the petitioners, the Union Government’s divestment of its shareholding in HZL is in violation of the judgment of a two-judge Bench of this Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India,4[“Centre for Public Interest Litigation”] (2003) 7 SCC 532] . In the proceedings as they stand, the challenge is to the proposed disinvestment of the residual shareholding of the Union Government in HZL, representing 29.54 per cent (approx.) of the equity capital.
2. Metal Corporation of India Limited was incorporated in 1944 as a public limited company under the Companies Act 1913. It was the sole producer of zinc and lead from its mines situated at Zawar in Rajasthan. The company had established a lead smelter plant at Tundoo, near Dhanbad, in the then State of Bihar for producing lead, silver and other by-products. Subsequently it installed a zinc smelter at Debari, near Udaipur. Given the strategic importance of zinc and lead, the Union Government took a decision to acquire the company by a legislation.
3. On 22 October 1965, the President promulgated the Metal Corporation of India (Acquisition of Undertaking) Ordinance for acquisition of the undertaking by the Union Government. Possession, control and administration was taken over by the Union Government on 23 October 1965. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was instituted in 19655[WP 631-D of 1965] by the corporation and its managing director before the Circuit Bench in New Delhi of the then Punjab High Court, for challenging the constitutional validity of the Ordinance. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Ordinance was replaced by Act 44 of 1965 which led to the institution of another writ petition6[WP 832-D of 1965] challenging its validity. On 10 January 1966, HZL was incorporated as a public sector company to develop the mining and smelting capacities, so as to substantially fulfil the domestic demand for zinc and lead.
4. On 14 March 1966, the Punjab High Court held that the Ordinance and the enactment that replaced it, violated Article 31 of the Constitution and were void. The appeal by the Union of India was dismissed by this Court on 5 September 1966, in Union of India v. Metal Corporation of India Ltd, (1967) 1 SCR 255. On 13 September 1966 another Ordinance, Ordinance No 10 of 1966, was promulgated by the President for the acquisition of the undertaking of Metal Corporation of India Limited. The Ordinance was replaced by an Act of Parliament (Act 36 of 1966) which came into force on 3 December 1966. This led to ano
A policy decision by Central Government, taken after due deliberations, at various levels and is not open to interference in judicial review by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 o....
A public interest litigation is not maintainable if it is shown to be politically motivated or filed for personal gain. Courts will not substitute their judgment for executive economic policies unles....
Limited scope of judicial interference in economic policy decisions and the need for a fair and transparent process in disinvestment.
Public interest litigations must be genuine and not motivated by personal agendas; previous judgments on similar issues bind the parties, barring new petitions.
State disinvestment guidelines inapplicable to compulsory takeover schemes under Section 230(11) of Companies Act for unlisted companies; valuation per statutory rules mandatory with equal treatment ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.