LexKAMLA PRASAD KHETAN versus THE UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1957
May I,
1052
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
KAMLA PRASAD KHET AN
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA
(and connected petitions)
(S. R. DAS c. J., JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS,
GoVINDA MENON and A. K. SARKAR J J.)
[1957)
Industrial undertaking, control of-Central Government taking
over management by notified order-Atnendment of such order by
another-Validity-'Like conditions', Meaning of-Appointment of
Controller-Bona fides-The Industries (Development and Regulation)
Act (LXV of 1951), as amenqed by Amrnding Act, 26 of 1953, ss.
18A, 15, 16-Gcneral Clauses Act (X of 1879), s. 21.
By a notified order dated November 8, 1955, the Government
of India took over the managen1ent of certain Sugar Mills under
s. 18A(l) (b) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act,
1951, for one year and vested it in a Controller.
This was
preceded by an investigation under s. 15 of the Act and the Central
Government had materials before it to be of the opinion that the
management was being conducted in a manner highly detrimental
to the undertaking and to public interest.
On November 7, 1956,
this order was amended extending the Controller's management for
a further period of two years.
It was contended on behalf of the
petitioners that the requirement of s.
18A(l)(b) of the Act not
having been satisfied before the amending order was made, the
amendment was invalid and that, in any event. the appointment
of the same person as the authorised Controller was not bona fide.
Held, per S. R. Das C. J., Jafer Imam, S. K. Das and Govinda
Menon J J.-that s.
18A of the
Industries
(Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951, read with ss. 15 and 16 of the Act and
properly
construed,
leaves no
doubt
that
the two conditions
mentioned in cl. (b} of sub-s. (I) of s. 18A, relating to investiga-
tion
and
mismanagement,
must
relate to a period when the
management of the undertaking was legally vested in its owne{
and once they are found to exist and the management is taken
over by the Governme'nt, the conditions continue to exist by their
very nature till the management goes back to the owner ; there-
fore, the amending order also fulfilled the same conditions subject
to which the original order was made.
When a notified
order
under
the
section is sought to be
amended by the application of s. 21 of the General Clauses Act,
'like conditions' mentioned in the latter section, to which such
Order of
amendment
must be
subject,
are
the two conditions
relating
to
investigation
and
mismanagement
mentioned
in
s. 18A(I} (b) of the Industries (Development and Regulation} Act,
S.C.R. ·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1053
Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gutta Mill Workers' Union,
( 1953) S.C.R. 439, held inapplicable.
The appointment of a suitable person as the Controller rests
entirely with the Central Government and unless an appointment
can be show!). ·to have been made for any ulterior purpose contrary
to what the Statute has in view, its bona fides is not open to
question.
Consequently, in the instant case, both the original notifica-
tion and· its amendment were valid in law.
Per Sarkar J.-'Like conditions' mentioned in s. 21 ot the
General Clauses Act, when applied to s. 18A of the Industries
(Development and Regulation) Act, cannot mean the two condi-
tions mentioned in cl. (b) of sub-s. (I) of that section on the fulfil-
ment of which the Central Government has the right to issue a
notification, but must mean the condition mentioned in sub-s. (2)
of that section, subject to which afone the right to issue a notifi-
cation can be exercised, namely, that a notified order cannot have
effect for more than five years and, consequently, the amending
order in
questi!?n which
satisfied
that condition must be valid
in law.
ORIGINAL
JuRrSDICTION : Petition No. 54 of 1955.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Purshottam Tricumdas, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar
Nath, f. B. Dadachanji and P. L. Vohra, for the
petitioner.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, Porus
A. Mehta and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
M. L. Misra, Advocate-General, U. P., and C. P. Lal,
for the Intervener.
1957. May 1. The Judgment of S. R. Das C.- J. Jafar
Imam, S. K. ·Das and Govinda Menon JJ. was delivered
by S. K. Das J. Sarkar J. delivered a separate judg-
ment.
19!i7.
Kamla PrtJJad
Khetan
v.
The Union.ef India
S. K. DAs J.-On November 8, 1955, the MiniExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.