Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh, C. J. and Faizanuddin, J.
INDORE TEXTILES LTD., INDORE - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 825 Of 1981
Decided On : 12/17/1982
(2) Natural justice - principles of in administrative law.
When a quasi-judicial power is conferred on the government or a minister, by a stature, it is presumed that parliament intends the power to be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice according to the usual practice of the department concerned. The normal practice of Government departments is that the minister in charge of the Department takes assistance from subordinate officials of his department. There is no breach of natural justice if the investigation or the hearing part is done by an official or a committee and the final decision is taken by the Minister after going through the report of the officer concerned and the evidence and material collected by him. Even in acting upon such, a report the Minister may take assistance from others in his department and the decision reached by him cannot be tested being in violation of the principles of natural justice, if he has honestly applied his mind to the relevant material and the decision reached by him is really his decision. AIR 1956 SC 285, AIR 1969 SC 198, AIR 1973 SC 389, AIR 1973 SC 1124, and AIR 1973 SC 1260 relied on. AIR 1959 SC 327 referred to. [Para 7]
(3) Industries (Development and Regulation)' Act, 1951-S. 18-AA- hearing given by Joint Secretary-after considering his report and reports of other official the Minister passed the order-principles of natural justice not violated.
The hearing was given by Shri R. Ram Krishna Joint Secretary. His report which contained the submissions made by the petitioner company and his opinion on the question of existence of circumstances and legality of take over under section 18-AA was considered by the Minister after obtaining the opinion of other officials of the department, namely, Shri Damodaran and Shri Shunglu. The decision reached however, was of the Minister himself who must be presumed to have considered the submissions of the petitioner company contained in the report of Shri Ram Krishna and his views and the views of other officials. It may here be recalled that although Shri Ram Krishna had recommended withdrawal of the take over on moral grounds, he had also expressed the view that technically the requirements of section 18-AA were satisfied. Having regard to the facts of the instant case and the principles of administrative law considered above, it cannot be held that there was no hearing by the Minister and that his order is invalid for the reason that the oral hearing was given by an official of the Ministry namely Sri R. Ram Krishna and not by the Minister himself. AIR 1959 SC 308 distinguished. AIR 1961 Kerala 299 and AIR 1973 All. 1 relied on. [Para 11]
(4) Industries (Development-and Regulation) Act, 1951-Ss. 18AA (2), 18-A (2) and 18-F-extention of the period of take over-prior hearing not necessary-remedy for the owner.
While passing an order under section 18-AA (2) read with section 18-A (2) continuing the take over for further six months no prior hearing is necessary before the passing the order of take over.
The owner whose undertaking is taken over is already heard at the time of exercise of the power under section 10-AA. The owner can also apply under section 18-F that it is not necessary that the order of take over should remain in force and the Central Government can cancel the take over under that section. [Para 13]
( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1, Indore Textile Limited, is a company owning a textile mill at Agar Road, Ujjain. Petitioner No. 2 is a Director of that company. By order dated 12th Aug. 1977, the Central Government, acting under Section 18aa of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, authorised the Madhya Pradesh State Textile Corporation to take over the management of the whole of the mill for a period of five years. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Misc. Petition No. 57 of 1977. It was contended in that petition by the petitioners that the power conferred on the Central Government by Section 18aa is quasi-judicial in nature. This contention was accepted. It was also contended in that petition that the Central Government should have given a hearing to the petitioners before passing the said order and in the absence of a prior hearing the order was invalid being contrary to the principles of natural justice. This contention was partly accepted. It was held by this Court that prior hearing is not necessary in all cases and that when immediate action is to be taken, a post decision hearing can meet the requirements of natural justice. It was on this basis that the Court by order dated 8th Sept. 1980 allowed the petition and directed the Central Government to give an opportunity within two months to the petitioner-company to show cause against the order under Section 18aa and to cancel the order if the petitioner was able to satisfy that the conditions requisite for making of the order did not exist. There was no appeal against the decision of this Court which has now been reported as Indore Textile Ltd. v. Union of India, 1981 MPLJ 236 : (1981 Lab IC 545 ).
( 2 ) THE Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818, had to consider the same question. The Supreme Court also took the iew that the power conferred under Section 18aa on the Central Government is quasi-judicial in nature and that the said power has to be exorcised consistent with the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court, however, held that a pre-decisional hearing under Section 18aa is a must. But the Supreme Court did not quash the order made by the Central Government which was challenged in that case and directed the Central Government to give a full, fair and effective hearing to the owner of the undertaking on all aspects of the matter including those touching the validity and/or correctness of the order under Section 18aa and then after a review of all the materials and circumstances to take a fresh decision, and/or such remedial action as may be necessary, just, proper and in accordance with law. The direction that this Court issued against the Central Government in the case of the petitioners in the earlier writ petition, although not so elaborate, was in substance the same as was given by the Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills' case.
( 3 ) IN pursuance of the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petition, a telegraphic notice was issued to the petitioner-company to appear for hearing on 15th Nov. 1980. The petitioner company was heard by Shri R. Ram Krishna, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Commerce (Department of Textiles ). As no order after this hearing was communicated by the Central Government to the petitioners, they filed the present writ petition on 16th July 1981 for challenging the order dated 12% Aug. 1977 passed under Section 18aa on the ground that the directions issued in the earlier writ petition were not complied with. By an interim order made on 25th Nov. 1981, we directed the Central Government to pass an order in the light of the hearing given to the petitioner-company by the end of December 1981. The Central Government on 2nd January 1982 sent a communication to the petitioner-company that the Government came to the conclusionthat conditions requisite for the making of the order of take over did exist and that the take over was justified in the facts
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
