petition under article 32 of constitution

8/11/2019 Petition Under Article 32 of Constitution

1/26

Petition under Article 32 of ConstitutionA. Scope of Article 32 of the Constitution of India

The sole object of the Article 32 of the Constitution of India is the enforcement ofthe fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.Whatever other remedies may be open to a person aggrieved he has no right tocomplain under Article 32 !here no fundamental right has been infringed. Itfollo!s that no "uestion other than relating to a fundamental right !ill bedetermined in a proceeding under the Article 32 including interlocutory reliefs. A!rit under the said Article 32 !ould not lie to enforce the #overnment policy or a$irective Principle.

Article 3% dealt !ith right to property. The said Article !as deleted by the &&thAmendment Act %'() !hereby the provisions of the said Article 3% !ere deletedand provisions of Article 3**A !ere incorporated. +y reason of deletion of the saidArticle 3% from the Part III of the Constitution the right to property cease to e,istas a fundamental right and therefore no! it is not possible to file a !rit in the

-upreme Court of India under Article 32 for enforcing and or challenging the rightto property. /o!ever a !rit may lie under Article 220 of the Constitution of Indiato the /igh Courts.

+. Application under Articles 32 and 226

Article 32 and Article 220 both deal !ith enforcement of right of the citi1enagainst the #overnment or #overnmental Authorities. /o!ever the scope ofArticle 32 is limited to the e,tent of enforcement of the fundamental rights statedin the Part III of the Constitution !hereas the scope of Article 220 of theConstitution is much !ider than Article 32 of the Constitution. The /igh Court!hile e,ercising the Article 220 can give reliefs in case of "uasi udicial Tribunalsand authorities or other acts by such lo!er authorities even though the acts of

such authorities do not infringe the fundamental rights.

The -upreme Court is competent to give relief under Article 32 against anyauthority !ithin the territory of India. The po!er of /igh Court under Article 220is confined to its territorial urisdiction so that even !here fundamental rightshave been infringed the /igh Court cannot grant reliefs against an authoritylocated outside its territorial jurisdiction e,cept in certain e,ceptional casesnamely !here the causes of action arises in !hole or in part !ithin territorial

jurisdiction of that Court. /o!oever a !rit against 4nion of India can be filed inany /igh Court in India.

C. Amplitude of Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32

The po!ers given to the -upreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement offundamental rights are not confined to issuing prerogative !rits only and are notnecessarily circumscribed by the conditions !hich limit the e,ercise of theprerogative !rits. The said Article is !ide enough to consider even claims forcompensation arising from the violation of fundamental rights. The range of

judicial revie! recognised in the superior judiciary of India is perhaps the !idestand the most e,tensive 5no!n to the !orld of la!. The po!er e,tends to thee,amining the validity to even an amendment to the Constitution. 6o Constitution


2/26

amendment can be sustained !hich violates the basic structure of theConstitution.

$. Who may apply under Article 32

Any person !ho complains of infraction of any of the fundamental rightsguaranteed by the Constitution is at liberty to move the -upreme Court includingcorporate bodies e,cept !here the language of the provisions or the nature ofright compels the inference that they are applicable only to natural persons.Conversely one cannot apply under Article 32 in respect of a fundamental rights!hich he does not possess. There are certain fundamental rights !hich areconfined on citi1en alone vi1. rights under Article %' of the Constitution. A nonciti1en cannot therefore apply for the enforcement of any such rights. +ut a nonciti1en or a company or a statutory authority may apply for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights !hich have been confined on all persons under Article %&of the Constitution.

7. Applicability of Article 32 to the Public Interest Liti ation

In recent times the -upreme Court has even considered and given reliefs inpublic interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution.

!" #$pansion of Public Interest Liti ation%. This e,traordinary jurisdiction !as e,ercised by the -upreme Court for the

enforcement of fundamental rights in its jurisdiction under Article 32!here t!o 8a! Professors addressed a letter to the -upreme Courtcomplaining that the fundamental rights of the inmates of the Protective/ome under Article 2% !ere being violated by the #overnment /ome.

2. In #upta9s case :AI; %')2 sec. %&'< !here 4pendra9s case :%')3< 2 sec.3*) !as referred to the doctrine of public interest litigation !asformulated by a +ench of ( udges in a comprehensive form to apply toany case of public injury arising from =

a. the breach of any public duty orb. the violation of some provision of the Constitution orc. of the la!.

3. Though the doctrine !as initially applied by the -upreme Court to enforcefundamental rights under Article 32 it soon came to be applied by the/igh Courts in their jurisdiction under Article 220 not only to enforcefundamental rights but also to restrain the 7,ecutive from undermining thepublic interest. As the #overnment is encouraging sports grant of lease ofland for that purpose even at concessional rates cannot be said to be notto subserve the public purpose.

%" Application under Article 32 a ainst an order of ta$ation%. Though the right not to be ta,ed e,cept by authority of la! is embodied in

Article 20> !hich is not a fundamental right an application under Article32 !ill lie if that ta, relates to a person9s right to carry on a business orprofession and thus constitutes an infringement of his fundamental rightguaranteed by rights %&? %>? %':%


3/26


4/26

to challenge the constitutional validity of the Te,tile 4nderta5ings :6ationalisation :6o. 0 of %''>< DEthe @rdinanceE for shortF and the conse"uentactions proposed to be ta5en pursuant thereof. The Petitioners submit that thesaid @rdinance is clearly ultra vires the Constitution and violative of Articles %&%' :%< :g< and 3**A of the Constitution of India. The said @rdinance is clearly acolourable e,ercise of the legislative po!er :e,ercised by the e,ecutive< by the;espondents. The said @rdinance is also in teeth of the mandate of Article 3**A of the Constitution of India. +esides the @rdinance is apparently aimed at nullifyingthe various orders passed by this /onBble Court !hich have been completelybreached by the ;espondents and they are clearly in contempt of those orders asdemonstrated hereinafter. +esides the facts and circumstances of the casedemonstrate that there !as not an iota of urgency or circumstances as envisagedunder Article %23 of the Constitution for promulgation of @rdinance. The@rdinance is clearly unconstitutional null and void and the same is liable to be sodeclared for !hich purpose the Petitioners are approaching this /onBble Court.

2. The brief facts and bac5ground giving rise to the filing of this petition is narratedhereinafter.

%. Petitioner 6o. % is a joint stoc5 company e,isting under and governed bythe provisions of the Companies Act I of %'>0 and has its registered officeat Gamani Chambers ;. Gamani arg +allard 7state +ombay &** *3).Petitioner 6o. 2 is the Principal @fficer $irector and shareholder of the %stPetitioner and is national and citi1en of India.

2. ;espondent 6o. % is the 4nion of India. ;espondent 6o. 2 is the -ecretaryinistry of 8a! and ustice and Company Affairs :8egislative $epartment


5/26

said Act of &* of %')3 is anne,ed hereto as Anne,ure A.

>. The Petitioners thereupon filed Writ Petition 6o. 2&*% of %')3 in the /ighCourt at +ombay challenging the constitutional validity of the said %')3@rdinance and subse"uently the %')3 Act and other conse"uential reliefs.The petitioners crave liberty to rely upon the papers and proceedings ofthe said !rit petition and various affidavits filed therein.

0. The said !rit petition filed by the Petitioners herein !as heard by the$ivision +ench of the +ombay /igh Court along !ith other companion !ritpetitions and the said !rit petition by a judgment and order dated %3th

une %')& !as allo!ed and the %')3 @rdinance Act !as declared asunconstitutional inter alia insofar as it pertained to the Petitioners te,tileunderta5ing. The $ivision +ench ho!ever granted certificate under Article32 of the Constitution of India to the ;espondents herein to appeal to this/onBble Court. A copy of the said judgment dated %3th une %')&delivered by the $ivision +ench of the +ombay /igh Court is anne,ed asAnne,ure +B.

(. The Petitioners state that thereafter ;espondent 6o. % as also ;espondent6o. 3 have filed appeals in this /onBble Court being Civil Appeal 6o. 2''>and other companion appeals. @n those appeals various orders have beenpassed !hich are summarised as under.

a. The appeals filed by 4nion of India and ;espondent 6o. 3 as alsovarious other parties !ere heard on %%th $ecember %')& %2th$ecember %')& %3th $ecember %')& %)th $ecember %')& %'th$ecember %')& 2*th $ecember %')& and %>th anuary %')>.

b. @n %(th anuary %')> an order !as passed by the +ench of threeudges of this /onBble Court under !hich it !as directed that the

Civil Appeals as also the interim applications therein be heard by a+ench of not less than five udges. A copy of the said order dated

%(th anuary %')> is anne,ed as Anne,ure CB.c. @n 22nd anuary %')> the three udgesB +ench of this /onBble

Court passed the follo!ing order as regards the PetitionersBunderta5ing is concerned.

:i< 6TC !as directed to furnish to the Petitioners "uarterlystatement of profit J loss balance sheet monthly statement ofstoc5s production and employment in respect of their use andmanagement of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing from %')3on!ards.:ii< The 4nion of India and 6TC !ere restrained fromdisposing of parting !ith possession or encumbering anyimmovable property fi,ed asset land plant and machinery of the

Petitioners !ithout prior leave of the court.:iii< The 4nion of Indiaand 6TC !ere restrained from removing any plant e"uipmentfurniture or fi,ture from the premises of the PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ing !ithout leave of the court.:iv< The e,isting telephoneconnections of the directors of the Petitioner Company !eredirected not to be disconnected.:v< The 6TC !as directed toprepare inventory of all assets and other properties both movableand immovable from 2'th anuary %')> from day to day.:vi< The6TC !as directed to hand over the register of contracts register of


6/26

directors register of charges unissued shares scrips minute boo5sof +oard eetings and #eneral +ody eetings.A copy of the orderdated 22nd anuary %')> is anne,ed as Anne,ure $B.

d. @n 23rd anuary %')> on order !as passed by the +ench of threeudges of this /onBble Court in !hich it !as recorded that the

possession of the registered office premises of the PetitionerCompany !ill be restored by the 4nion of India and 6TC to thePetitioners and this possession !ill continue !ith the companyduring the pendency of the appeal. The cars of the PetitionerCompany ta5enover by 6TC !ere also directed to be returned tothe Petitioner Company. A copy of the order dated 23rd anuary%')> is anne,ed as Anne,ure 7B.

The Petitioners state that each one of the above order and particularly theorder dated 22nd anuary %')> has not been fully complied !ith by the;espondents inasmuch as no steps have been ta5en !hatsoever by the;espondents to comply !ith the same and furnish to the Petitionersnecessary particulars and information as directed to be so furnished underthe said order dated 22nd anuary %')>. Thus non compliance !ith theorder of this /onBble Court. The Petitioners have also learnt that the;espondents have disposed of the assets of the PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ings contrary to and in breach of the orders passed by this/onBble Court particularly the above order.

%. The Petitioners believe that in ay %''> the 4nion Cabinethad approved the revised Turnaround plan for the 6TCsubject to the follo!ing stipulations?

i. The retrenchment of !or5men !ould be underta5en

at large scale and voluntary retirement scheme !ouldbe offered to reduce the number of !or5menstrength by 32'3).

ii. To modernise 2' te,tile mills at a cost of ;s. 2**>.(2crores.

iii. ;e structuring of 20 mills stated to be unviable into%) viable mills :as regards the PetitionersB mills isconcerned that it is to be merged !ith #old ohurand am ills or Tata ills ta5eover mills.v. The funds for the moderni1ation are to be generated

by sale of surplus lands and assets of these 6TCmills.

vi. That the functioning of the Turnaround plan should bemet e,clusively by sales proceeds of surplus landsand assets and no budgetary provision !ould bemade for the same.

2. In this bac5ground the Petitioners !ere shoc5ed to learn that on 2nd une%''> the +ill !as introduced in the 8o5 -abha being +ill 6o. &% '> 5no!nas the Te,tile 4nderta5ings :6ationalisation< +ill %''>. The statement ofobjects and reasons for the +ill recited that pending nationalisationmanagement of the PetitionersB underta5ing and %2 other te,tile


7/26

underta5ings !ere ta5enover in public interest. It !as further recited thatit !as necessary to ensure continued production and distribution ofdifferent varieties of cloth and yarn to the public at fair prices and theinterests of !or5men !ere also to be protected. The government alsoproposed to modernise and restructure the underta5ing to ma5e themviable and hence it !as proposed to nationalise the %> te,tile underta5ingsin public interest. The copy of the said +ill along !ith the statement ofobjects and reasons PresidentBs recommendation under Article %%( of theConstitution of India and the financial memorandum are anne,ed asAnne,ure HB.

%. The Petitioners further state that the aforesaid +ill !as introducedin 8o5 -abha. This +ill for purported nationali1ation !as introducedafter a period of %2 years after the ta5eover of management. ThePetitioners further state that the +ill is referred to the ointParliamentary Committee for Commerce for consideration to !homthe Petitioners have made subse"uently certain representations.The consideration of the +ill !as thus deferred pendingrecommendations report of the said Committee. The Petitioners

submit that Article 3%A permits ta5eover of management for alimited period of time. /o!ever %2 years can never be consideredas a limited period of time at end of !hich the +ill fornationali1ation !as introduced and in this bac5ground !hilst the+ill introduced in 8o5 -abha !as pending before the ointParliamentary Committee an @rdinance !as sought to bepromulgated on 2(th une %''> as mentioned hereinafter. The@rdinance promulgated under Article %23 of Constitution of Indiaclearly did not precede e,istence of any emergency or urgency forta5ing such a step of legislation by e,ecutive. Thus the conditionsprecedent for issuance of @rdinance under Article %23 !ere and areclearly absent.

3. In this bac5ground the Petitioners !ere shoc5ed to learn that on 2(thune %''> the @rdinance has been promulgated 5no!n as Te,tile

4nderta5ings :6ationalisation< @rdinance %''> :6o. 0 of %''>


8/26

The copy of the said @rdinance is anne,ed as Anne,ure #B.

2. The Petitioners submit that the salient features of the said @rdinance areas under

%. The provisions of the @rdinance are deemed to have come intoforce on %st April %''& !hich is described as appointed day.

2. @!nerB has been defined in -ection 2:g< to mean any personimmediately before the appointed day !as immediate proprietor orlessee or occupier of the te,tile underta5ing or any part thereofand the said definition reads thus E2:#< Eo!nerE !hen used in relation to a te,tile underta5ingmeans any person or firm !ho or !hich is immediately before theappointed day the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of thete,tile underta5ing or any part thereof and in the case of a te,tilecompany !hich is being !ound up or the business !hereof is beingcarried on by a li"uidator or receiver includes such li"uidator orreceiver and also includes any agent or manager of such o!ner butdoes not include any person or body of persons authorised underthe Te,tile 4nderta5ings :Ta5ing over of anagement< Act %')3 orunder the 8a,mirattan and Atherton West Cotton ills :Ta5ing overof anagement< Act %'(0 to ta5eover the management of the!hole or any part of the te,tile underta5ingE?

3. Te,tile CompanyB has been defined in sub section :%< of -ection 2!hich reads thus E2:%< Ete,tile companyE means a company :being a company asdefined in the Companies Act %'>0< specified in column :3< of theHirst -chedule as o!ning the te,tile underta5ing specified in thecorresponding entry in column :2< of that -chedule?E

&. -ection 3 provides that on the appointed day the right title andinterest of the o!ner in relation to every te,tile underta5ings shallstand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in Central#overnment. -ub section :2< provides that every te,tileunderta5ings !hich stands vested in Central #overnment shallstand transferred and vested in the 6ational Te,tile Corporation.

>. -ection & provides the effects of vesting the assets and propertiesof the te,tile underta5ings first in the Central #overnment and thenin the 6TC and those effects generally are thus

:a< The assets of te,tile underta5ing are deemed to be inclusive ofall movable immovable properties and lands etc. in India as !ell asabroad and shall also be deemed to include the liabilities andobligations specified in sub section :2< of -ection >.:b< Theproperty on vesting shall be freed and discharged from any trustobligation encumbrances mortgage charge lien etc. :c


9/26

the appointed day any suit appeal or other proceedings in respectof the property shall not abate and be discontinued but may becontinued or prosecuted or enforced by or against the 6TC.

0. -ection > provides that the o!ner shall be liable for liabilities of thete,tile underta5ings e,cept those specified in sub section :2< inrespect of any period prior to the appointed day. The liabilitiese,cluded are the follo!ing

:a< 8oans advanced by the Central #overnment or -tate#overnment after the %')3 @rdinance.:b< The amounts advancedto te,tile underta5ings after the management of the underta5ing!as ta5enover by the %')3 Act.:c< Wages salaries and other duesin respect of any period after the management !as ta5enover bythe Central #overnment under the %')3 Act.

(. -ub section :3< of -ection > provides that e,cept the liabilitiesprovided in sub section :2< in relation to te,tile underta5ings priorto appointed day shall be enforceable against the Central#overnment or 6TC.

). -ection ) provides that the o!ner of the te,tile underta5ings shallbe given in cash an amount e"ual to amount specified in the Hirst-chedule. Hor the PetitionersB underta5ing the amount specified is;s. & >0 ') *** .

'. -ection %* provides for management of the te,tile underta5ings by6TC.

%*. -ection %% provides that 6TC may for the better managementmodernisation restructuring or revival of te,tile underta5ing !iththe previous sanction of the Central #overnment may transfer

mortgage sale or other!ise dispose of any land plant machineryor any other asset of the te,tile underta5ing.%%. -ection %( provides for appointment of Commissioner for Payments

for the purposes specified in the said section.%2. -ection 2* provides for ma5ing claims before the Commissioner for

Payments against the o!ner and -ection 2% provides for priority ofthe claims as provided in the -econd -chedule to the @rdinance.The priorities are classified as Categories % 2 3 & > and 0 !hichare to ta5e precedence over the other one. Categories % and 2 areincluded in the -chedule of the post ta5eover management periodand apparently under -ection 2% these liabilities are to getprecedence and therefore they !ould be paid over to the respectiveclaims !ho !ould ma5e claim under -ection 2* before theCommissioner for Payments !hich !ill virtually !ipe out theamount payable to the o!ner as specified in the Hirst -chedule.

2. The Petitioners state that the +ill referred to hereinabove is reproducedverbatim by !ay of the impugned @rdinance !as presented in the 8o5-abha on the last day of the budget session. After learning about thesame here !as !idespread protest against the same from all circlesincluding trade industry labour as also the -tate #overnment. The copy of the ne!spaper reports are anne,ed as Anne,ure /B. The Petitionersfurther submit that the +ill has been referred to the Parliamentary


10/26

-tanding Committee. The Petitioners therefore made a representation on%*th uly %''> to the said Committee re"uesting them for the hearing. ThePetitioners received a communication dated %*th uly %''> fi,ing thehearing on %2th uly %''> !hich has been postponed at the re"uest of thePetitioners to %&th uly %''>. The copies of the above t!o letters bothdated %*th uly %''> are anne,ed as Anne,ures IB and B. The Petitionerssubmit that this seems to be a classic case of the governmental functioningof right hand being una!are of the activities of the left hand.

2. The Petitioners made representation dated %2th uly %''> to the ParliamentaryCommittee on Te,tile. In this representation Petitioners pointed out thecircumstances in !hich the management of the te,tile underta5ings !asta5enover. The Petitioner pointed out the judgment of the +ombay /igh Court in!hich the said Act of %')3 so far as it pertains to the PetitionersB underta5ing !asstruc5 do!n and the appeal pending in this /onourable Court. The Petitioners alsopointed out the complete mismanagement of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ingby 6TC and pointed out that it !as not in anybodyBs interest to nationali1e thePetitionerBs underta5ing as it !ould be further ruination of the underta5ing andneither the production !ill increase nor the employment !ill be continued as the

proposals being circulated in respect of the PetitionersB underta5ing !ere not therevival of the unit but the closure thereof and sale of land and merging the unit!ith some other mill. The Petitioners made a reference to the earlierrepresentation made by them to the /onourable inister on the subject matterbeing representation dated 2'th August %')> as also the representation dated%st -eptember %''2. A copy of the representation dated 2'th August %')> isanne,ed as Anne,ure GB hereto. A copy of the representation dated %st-eptember %''2 is anne,ed as Anne,ure 8B. A copy of the representation madeby the Petitioners to the Parliamentary Committee being representation dated%2th uly %''> is anne,ed as Anne,ure B hereto. The Petitioners submit thatthis is yet another factor this /onBble Court be pleased to ta5e into account !hile

judging the constitutional validity of the impugned @rdinance.

A. The Petitioners state that it appears that on 3%st uly %''> in themonsoon session of Parliament the /onBble inister of -tate for Te,tile r.#. Ken5atas!amy introduced the +ill for converting the impugned@rdinance into Act. A discussion too5 place and various members havepointed out that promulgation of the @rdinance !as !holly contrary to theparliamentary practices and it virtually amounted to ridiculing theParliament. This !as stated on the footing that earlier on 2nd une %''>the +ill !as already introduced in the Parliament and thereafter the same!as referred to the -tanding Committee !hich !as e"uivalent to the-elect Committee on the +ills and in this bac5ground on 2(th une %''>the @rdinance !as promulgated. The /onBble inister !as as5ed by the$eputy -pea5er !hether the @rdinance could not !ait !hen the +ill !as

pending before the -tanding Committee. The /onBble inister r. u5ulWasni5 made the follo!ing statement

EThere !as an urgency !hich had necessitated the revival of these te,tilemills. There !as certain recommendation made even by the -pecialTripartite Committee !hich !as constituted by the inistry of 8abour. Ifthe /onBble member !ants I can go through the entire statement and readit out for his information. +ut these !ere the reasons that I havee,plained. Hor the revival of these te,tile mills it !as felt necessary to


11/26

issue the @rdinances as soon as possible and therefore the @rdinance hadto be issued.E

The Petitioners crave liberty to refer to and rely upon the proceedings of8o5 -abha as regards the discussion on the introduction of the +ill forconvert the impugned @rdinance into a Parliament enactment.

2. The Petitioners submit that the events !hich have transpired from %')3 afterta5eover of the management of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing by the;espondents and handing over it to the 6TC particularly the 6TCBs subsidiary6ational Te,tile Corporation :-outh aharashtra< 8imited till the promulgation ofproposed @rdinance. These events also thro! light and clearly indicate thearbitrariness and unreasonableness of the impugned @rdinance. These events aresummari1ed thus

i. The 6TC has in operation %*> nationali1ed te,tiles and %> managed millsincluding the PetitionersB underta5ing !hich are operated through its 'subsidiary corporations. The authorised capital of 6TC is ;s. >** croresand paid up capital is ;s. &>(.)> crores.

ii. There are hundreds of unviable sic5 te,tile mills allover the country inrespect of !hich neither the #overnment nor 6TC have ta5en any steps.iii. As per the figures available relating to the functioning of 6TC the

accumulated net losses of 6TC as on 3%st arch %''> are ;s. &>)& crores!hich is the provisional estimate. @ut of ' subsidiary corporations of 6TC) have lost their net !orth and they have been declared as sic5 industrialcompanies under the provisions of the -ic5 Industrial Companies :-pecialProvisions< Act %')> and the references are pending before the +IH;. Thereasons claimed by 6TC for such losses are lac5 of ade"uate moderni1ationof solid machinery high mode and machine ratio e,cess manpo!er andshortage of !or5ing capital.

c. The matters have been referred to +IH; including the 6TC :-outhaharashtra< 8imited !hich is the custodian for the PetitionersB

te,tile underta5ing. The Petitioners have learnt that in the schemeproposed by the Te,tile inistry before the +IH; the follo!ingpoints have been discussed and submitted for consideration

a. -ince +an5s and financial institutions are reluctant to pumpin any more funds into operations of 6TC the functioning of6TC is neither trust!orthy nor economical and 6TC havingdefaulted in repayments has to generate its o!n funds.

b. -urplus lands are proposed to be disposed of to utiliseinterest free funds for moderni1ation !or5ing capital and toma5e the 4nits viable.

c. The mills !ill be merged !ith each other and on such mergersurplus lands !ould be made available and moderni1ationproposal !ill be !or5ed out by raising ;s. 2**> crores.

b. The "uestions have been as5ed in Parliament on the functioning ofthe 6TC and particularly the functioning of the mills in +ombay of!hich management has been ta5enover by the ;espondents under%')3 Act. The local .P. !ithin !hose jurisdiction the PetitionersBte,tile underta5ing falls? i.e. Central +ombay . P. r. ohan


12/26

;a!ale had as5ed the "uestions in 8o5 -abha and highlighted themismanagement by 6TC and corruption and inefficiency !hich ithad engulfed. The Petitioners crave liberty to refer to and rely uponthe proceedings of discussion in 8o5 -abha on this subject as !henthe same are available.

c. Petitioners state that as mentioned earlier ' subsidiary corporationsof 6TC have become sic5 under the provisions of the -ic5 IndustrialCompanies :-pecial Provisions< Act %')> and references arepending before +IH; on !hich various orders have been passed.Petitioners have obtained copies of those orders !hich aresummari1ed as under

a. In respect of 6TC :-outh aharashtra< 8td. an order !aspassed by +ench IK of +IH; on 20th @ctober %''& andoperating agency has been appointed. The order proceedson the footing of representations made in +ombay Te,tile;esearch Association report. A copy of the order dated 20th@ctober %''& is anne,ed as Anne,ure E6E hereto.

b. The Petitioners state that similar orders have been passed inrespect of the other 6TC subsidiaries. @n 2(th April %''>order has been passed in respect of the mills in aharashtra!herein the +ench directed all concerned parties includingthe -tate of aharashtra to submit their proposals on thedraft scheme prepared by the operating agency. A copy ofthe order dated 2(th April %''> is anne,ed hereto asAnne,ure @B.

d. The Petitioners state that although they do not have the copy of the-cheme from the ne!spaper reports it appears that the scheme isto sell the surplus lands of the te,tile mills including that of thePetitionersB te,tile underta5ing merger of some mills !ith others

and on that basis revival !ith voluntary retirement scheme it hasbeen reported in $ecember %''& that the +IH; has turned do!nthe proposals of sale of the lands of the mills for use for otherte,tile mills. Copy of these ne!spapers are anne,ed hereto asAnne,ure P.

e. In ay %''> it has been reported that the +IH; -pecial +ench atits hearing held on 2*th April %''> has ordered that since Te,tile

inistry and 6TC holding Company did not give its consent forrehabilitation scheme I$+I the operating agency has been directedto e,plore the possibilities of finding a private promoter for revivalof sic5 6TC units. Copy of the ne!spaper report is anne,ed heretoas Anne,ure L.

f. The Petitioners further submit that time and again ne!s reportshave been appearing on the functioning of 6TC !hich clearlyindicate that the 6TC has been the !hite elephant generated by the4nion #overnment and all the units of 6TC all run at the cost of themanagement and !or5men of the te,tile underta5ing !hich havebeen ta5enover for management. The basic premise on !hich thePetitionersB te,tile underta5ing !as ta5enover vi1 mismanagement


13/26

though this ground !as rejected by the +ombay /igh Court is theroot cause of the malfunctioning of 6TC and it is the 6TC !ho hasmismanaged the te,tile underta5ings including the PetitionersBunderta5ing. -ome of the ne!s reports !hich have appeared in thepast on this subject demonstrate this point beyond doubt aresummari1ed as under

a. It !as reported in -eptember %''2 :Hinancial 7,press dated%2th -eptember %''2< that #overnment itself !as planningto return ( mills :including Petitioners ill< subject to certainterms and conditions and the proposal !as not acceptable tothe illo!ners. A copy of the paper cutting is anne,ed asAnne,ure ;.

b. In the issue of Clote, India -eptember %''2 thefunctioning of 6TC has been analy1ed !herein the proposalsabout sales of surplus land merger of mills etc. have beendiscussed. Copy of the said article is anne,ed hereto asAnne,ure -.

c. The inister of -tate for Te,tile r. #. Ken5atas!amy hasclearly blamed 6TC for malfunctioning of te,tile mills !hichhas been reported in the press :Times of India dated (thApril %''3 copy !hereof is anne,ed as Anne,ure T.

d. The reasons for 6TCBs failure including corruption mismanagement have been analy1ed in an editorial : id $aydated %*th Hebruary %''&


14/26

be restored to the o!ners or they should be privatised:Indian 7,press dated %*th arch %''& being Anne,ure Wheretoth uly %''> a ne!s report appeared in Asian Agereporting that 6TC !as to sell e,cess land of %> te,tile mills!hich !ere sought to be ta5enover under the impugned@rdinance. It !as mentioned that since the real estatesprices in +ombay !ere 1ooming. r. ahesh!ari anager of Industrial ;elations at 6TC -outh aharashtra -tate statedthat useless lands belonging to each of these mills !ould besold to raise funds to upgrade the technology in the mills.The mills of !hose properties !ere sought to be sold interalia include 7lphinstone ills? i.e. the PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ing. A copy of the said ne!s report is anne,edhereto as Anne,ure N.

j. @n 3%st uly %''> a ne!s report appeared in Indian 7,press

reporting that large number of employees of 6TC -outhaharashtra had not been paid their !ages bac5 !agesgratuity fund etc. and hundreds of cases !ere pending in the8abour Courts Industrial Courts /igh Courts and even the-upreme Court.A copy of the said ne!s report is anne,ed as Anne,ure O.

5. @n 3%st uly %''> in Times of India ne!s report on thefunctioning of 6TC appeared under the caption E#od save usfrom the bureaucratsE. It !as reported that the idea ofnationalising %> te,tile units including the Petitioner !as toraise ;s. 2**> crores to be funded by sale of lands. It !aspointed out that the capacity utilisation of 6TC in spinningunits had dropped from (* to >' and in !eaving units

from 0) to 2) . The sale had dropped from ;s. 0>'crores to ;s. 3%& crores. It !as further stated that on onehand privatisation of public sector unit !as being underta5ento ma5e them more efficient and on the other hand otherunits !ere being nationalised and handedover to one of themost inefficient P-4s namely the 6TC. It !as furtherreported that the inister of -tate for Te,tile r. #.Ken5atas!amy had himself stated in %''3 that high levelcorruption in 6TC !as responsible for poor status of themills. A copy of the said report is anne,ed as Anne,ure Q.

l. @n %st August %''> a ne!s report appeared in -tatesmanCalcutta and /industan Times 6e! $elhi in !hich theproceedings of 8o5 -abha in !hich the #overnment !ascriticised on the @rdinance !ere reported. A copy of theset!o reports are anne,ed as Anne,ure AA.

%. The Petitioners submit that a starred "uestion !asas5ed in ;ajya -abha on functioning of 6TC and thelosses incurred by the 6TC the brea5 up of lossesand steps #overnment proposes to ta5e or havealready ta5en. This "uestion !as ans!ered by the/onourable inister of Te,tiles -hri #. Ken5atas!amy


15/26

on 2>th April %''> in !hich it !as mentioned that theaccumulated losses suffered by 6TC for the threeyears ending %''2 %''3 and %''& !ere ;s. 232*;s. 3**3 and ;s. 3('* crores respectively. It !asstated that a revised Turn around strategy !as underconsideration and the final scheme !ould besubmitted to +IH;. As regards PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ing is concerned the accumulated net lossesfor the years ending %''2 %''3 and %''& in crores!ere ;s. 3.03 >.(& and %%.)% respectively. -omeother "uestions !ere also ans!ered about thefunctioning of the 6TC. Copies of the "uestions andans!ers from the ;ajya -abha proceedings dated2>th April %''> are anne,ed as Anne,ure ++ hereto.

g. The Petitioners believe that in respect of PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ing the scheme submitted before +IH; envisages theclosure of the spinning and !eaving unit and merger thereof !ith

some other sic5 mill and generating funds by sale of surplus landbelonging to the PetitionersB company.

h. The Petitioners submit that from the aforesaid it is evident that!hat the ;espondents proposed through +IH; scheme as also ofthe impugned @rdinance is e,actly contrary to !hat they areprofessing to do under the %')3 Act as also the impugned@rdinance? vi1 augmenting manufacturing capacity for yarn andcloth continuation of the unit and continuation of the !or5 force inemployment and preventing reduction in the employment force areall frustrated and in fact not even aimed at as is evident andobvious from the schemes proposed before the +IH; and the entireplan envisaged by the ;espondents. The Petitioners submit that this

single factor alone is sufficient to establish that the impugned@rdinance is clearly arbitrary unreasonable and violative ofPetitionersB constitutional rights under Article %& %' :%< :g< and3** of the Constitution of India.

2. In the circumstances aforesaid the Petitioners are approaching this /onBble Courtinvo5ing its e,traordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiachallenging the aforesaid @rdinance? vi1. Te,tile 4nderta5ings :6ationalisation :6o. 0 of %''>< on the follo!ing amongst other grounds. 7ach of the grounds set out hereinbelo! is !ithout prejudice to one another.

%. The Petitioners submit that the impugned @rdinance is a continuation of

the scheme of management underta5en in %')3 by virtue of %')3 Act. ThePetitioners submit that %')3 Act and the %''> @rdinance are thusine,tricably lin5ed and they cannot stand apart. The Petitioners submitthat the %''> @rdinance proceeds on the footing of the %')3 Act beingultra vires !hich in fact has been declared ultra vires by the +ombay /ighCourt in the case of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing. Thus the premisesof the impugned @rdinance is clearly !rong and is a subject matterpending before this /onBble Court before a +ench of not less than >

udges. The Petitioners therefore submit that until the validity of the %')3


16/26

Act is finally determined by this /onBble Court the ;espondents could nothave underta5en the proposed legislation !hich has been so underta5en bythe impugned @rdinance as the impugned @rdinance cannot stand on itso!n and therefore is liable to be declared as ultra vires. The Petitionersubmits that the @rdinance !hich is subject matter of the Petition coversonly %> te,tile underta5ings of !hich the management !as ta5enover in%')3. /o!ever there are around %** mills closed !hich have not beentouched by the present @rdinance. This clearly sho!s the ne,us bet!eenthe %')3 Act and the present @rdinance.

2. The Petitioners further submit that the %')3 Act !as only for the purposeof preventing mismanagement in the te,tile underta5ing and it !as theonly reason for ta5ing over the te,tile underta5ings including thePetitionersB te,tile underta5ing. In fact on a clear finding of fact the+ombay /igh Court in its judgment dated %3th une %''& in Writ Petition6o. 2&*% of %')3 has observed in respect of the PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ing thus

E%)*. @n the admitted position the financial condition of all the millsduring %')% and %')2 including the PetitionersB three mills !as bad. In factas compared to the financial condition of certain mills in CAT 2 theposition of the PetitionersB mills !as better. In that case from the merecircumstances that the financial condition of the PetitionersB mill !as badduring %')% )2 no inference could be dra!n that the same !as due to anymismanagement even if the terms !ere used in the sense ofbad improper management by the Petitioner Company. The #overnmenttherefore could not have for ta5ing over the management of the saidmills relied on the said CATs for classifying the PetitionersB mills as mills!hose financial condition !as bad due to mismanagement.E

E2*&. In our vie! the above discussion !ould sho! that 4nion of India has

failed to establish from any material on record that there !as any ne,usbet!een the main object or purpose of the Act namely to ta5eovermanagement of only those mills !hose financial condition before stri5e as!holly unsatisfactory by reason of mismana ement and classification ofPetitioner mills as such mills. In fact under the circumstances the PetitionermillsB inclusion in the class covered by the Act !as arbitrary. The impugned@rdinance Act therefore infringed the PetitionersB fundamental right underArticle %& of the Constitution and "ua them !as invalidE.

Thus it is evident that the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing !as notmismanaged and therefore in %')3 the management thereof could nothave been ta5en over. The Petitioners submit that from %)th @ctober %')3till %st April %''& :the appointed day under the impugned @rdinance< theposition of the PetitionersB te,tile mills and the underta5ing is !ith the;espondents only by virtue of the orders of this /onBble Court and not byvirtue of the %')3 Act !hich has been declared ultra vires insofar as itpertains to the Petitioners. The basic foundation of the present legislationtherefore is clearly unsustainable and the impugned @rdinance thereforeon that count is liable to be declared as unconstitutional and ultra vires.

3. The Petitioners submit that the #overnment of India is a signatory to the


17/26

treaty of World Trade @rganisation :WT@


18/26

0. The Petitioners submit that it has been declared in the preamble that the

@rdinance has been promulgated for the ac"uisition and transfer of te,tileunderta5ing and the right title and interest of the o!ners in respectthereof to the Central #overnment and then to 6TC. The object of suchac"uisition is proclaimed to be augmenting the production and distributionof different varieties of clothes and yarn so as to subserve the interest ofthe general public. It is further declared that !hilst the management hasbeen ta5enover !hich is according to the @rdinance !as pendingac"uisition large sums of money have been invested to ma5e the te,tileunderta5ing viable and further investments of large sums of money !asnecessary and it !as also necessary for securing the continuedemployment of the !or5men employed in the te,tile underta5ing and it!as therefore necessary in the public interest to ac"uire the said te,tileunderta5ing. The Petitioners submit that each of the assertions made inthis preamble is completely false and is a bogie created for the ac"uisitionof the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing for a pittance. Thus the ac"uisition of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing is neither in the public interest nor for

any public purpose and is virtually e,propriation of the Petitioners !ithoutma5ing a just compensation for such ac"uisition. @n this count the@rdinance is liable to be declared as ultra vires and violative of Articles %&%' :%< :g< and 3** A of the Constitution of India.

(. The Petitioners submit that the impugned legislation is not protected eitherby Article3% A or by Article 3% C as it is not for any purpose of implementing thedirective principles under Article 3' :b< and or 3' :c< of the Constitution of India. As held by this /onBble Court that from this legislation in the instantcase the @rdinance it has to be demonstrated that the Act is in fact madefor the purposes of implementing the directive principles contained inclauses :b< and :c< of Article 3' and a mere proclamation or professing to

that effect is not sufficient. In the instant case it is clearly demonstrablefrom the te,t of the @rdinance that the same is not for any purpose ofimplementing the directive principles contained in clauses :b< and ' :c< ofArticle 3' and if at all it is anything to the contrary as such the impugned@rdinance has to satisfy on the touch stone of validity !ith reference toArticles %& and %' :%< :g< !hich it clearly fails. The said @rdinancetherefore is liable to be declared as clearly unconstitutional and violative of Articles %& and %' :%< :g< of the Constitution of India.

). The Petitioner submits that neither the %')3 Act nor the impugned@rdinance contain a declaration under Article 3%C to the effect that theimpugned @rdinance is for apparently giving effect to the principlescontained in clauses :b< and :c< of Article 3' of the Constitution. ThePetitioners submit that there are large number of legislations !hich thePetitioners have listed separately in a chart sho!ing the nationalisation andac"uisition Acts containing such declaration and the decision of challengesto such enactments and the legislations containing no such declaration andthe decision of challenges to such enactments. The Petitioners submit that!hen the Parliament consciously puts a declaration in certain enactments!hilst it consciously does not put such declaration in certain enactments ithas to have a significance and the inclusion of a declaration and their being


19/26

no such declaration has to be clearly vie!ed in a different perspective. ThePetitioners submit that in this bac5ground it is submitted that the;espondents cannot contend that the Act is protected by Article 3%C unlessa declaration to that effect is made in the legislation itself. The Petitionerssubmit that !ithout prejudice to the aforesaid contention even assuming!ithout admitting that such a declaration is not necessary and it could begathered from the legislation itself the impugned @rdinance gives no suchindication and on the contrary positively it can be established that theimpugned @rdinance is not the one for giving effect for the principles givenin clause :b< and :c< of Article 3' of the Constitution. The Petitionerssubmit that on this count also the impugned @rdinance is liable to bedeclared as unconstitutional under Articles %& and %' :%< :g< of theConstitution.

'. The Petitioners further submit that after the @rdinance 6o. %* of %')3 !aspromulgated on )th @ctober %')3 and possession of the underta5ing !asta5enover by the Central #overnment and handed over to ;espondent 6o.3 as custodian they have completely mismanaged the said underta5ing

the !or5ersB strength has reduced and the cash losses have increasedtremendously. +efore the Te,tile illsB general stri5e Petitioners te,tileunderta5ings functioning !as absolutely normal. 7ven during the generalstri5e by Petitioners efforts functioning of te,tile underta5ing !as improvedand just before ta5eover it !as brought to almost normalcy. ThePetitioners submit that the assertions that the ;espondents have investedhuge sums of money and it is necessary to invest further sums as also it isnecessary to augment the !or5 force for production and distribution ofdifferent varieties of cloth is completely false and bogus as before theta5eover of the management the !or5ing of the PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ing !as much better than !hat as it has become after %)th@ctober %')3. -ince last about one year the Petitioners te,tile underta5ingis completely closed. Hor month of une %''> no salaries have been paid.

The !or5force and production has reduced considerably. The Petitionershave compiled a comparative data and the figures of the !or5ing of thePetitionersB te,tile underta5ing after %)th @ctober %')3 !hich is anne,edas Anne,ure CCB !hich justifies this point.

%*. The Petitioners further submit that under -ection > the liabilities of theunderta5ing e,cept those specified under sub section :2< are enforceableagainst the o!ner of the te,tile underta5ing. -ub section :2< contemplatesliabilities by !ay of loans advanced to the te,tile underta5ing by thegovernments amounts advanced or the !ages salaries and other dues ofthe employees etc. It is contemplated that the e,propriated o!ner shall bepaid an amount e"uivalent to the one specified in the Hirst -chedule. Inrespect of the PetitionersB underta5ing the amount specified is ;s.& >0 ') *** . /o!ever the said amount is not the compensation payableto the petitioners as it is to be adjusted by the Commissioner for Paymentsas per the scheme of part KI of the said @rdinance !hich contemplatesthat the Commissioner shall settle out of the amount payable to the o!nerof the te,tile underta5ing of > categories as specified in the -econd-chedule and the priority has been given to Categories % to 0 !hich ta5eprecedence over the another. -urprisingly and shoc5ingly the liabilities incategories % and 2 are the post ta5eover management period !hich are


20/26

also to be satisfied out of the amount payable to the e,propriated o!nerout of the pittance of compensation payable to him. The Petitioners submitthat this is the most shoc5ing and grossest provisions of the @rdinance!hich ma5es the !hole @rdinance unconstitutional and violative ofmandate of Articles %& and %' :%< :g< as also 3** A of the Constitution ofIndia.

%%. The Petitioners further submit that the $ivision +ench of the +ombay /ighCourt has declared in its judgment dated %3th une %')& that there !asno mismanagement of the PetitionersB underta5ing and the %')3 Act ofta5ing over the management of the PetitionersB underta5ing !asunconstitutional. The management and possession of the te,tileunderta5ing of the Petitioners is continued !ith the ;espondents only byvirtue of orders passed by this /onBble Court in the pending appeals asmentioned earlier? vi1. the orders dated %(th anuary %')> 22nd anuary%')> and 23rd anuary %')>. Apart from the above the ;espondentshaving completely flouted and breached those orders the possession andmanagement of the te,tile underta5ing continued !ith the ;espondents is

only by virtue of the said orders and not by virtue of the %')3 Act !hich isstruc5 do!n insofar as it pertains to the Petitioners. In this vie! of thematter the Petitioners submit that the impugned @rdinance is a clearfrauid of po!er by ;espondent 6o. % in promulgating the said @rdinancefor nationalisation of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing. The Petitionerssubmit that on this count the impugned @rdinance is liable to be struc5do!n and declared unconstitutional.

%2. The Petitioners submit that in any vie! of the matter the ;espondents hadpurported to ta5eover the management of the PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ing from %)th @ctober %')3 on the ground of mismanagement ofthe underta5ing. The Petitioners submit that after %)th @ctober %')3!hatever liabilities have been incurred by the ;espondents cannot be

fastened upon the Petitioners !hich is sought to be done by the impugned@rdinance. The Petitioners submit that on the other hand the managementof the te,tile underta5ing of the Petitioners !as ta5en over !ith effect from%)th @ctober %')3 !hich is continued by virtue of the orders of this/onBble Court and no! !hat is sought to be done is all post ta5eovermanagement liabilities of the te,tile underta5ing are sought to bededucted from the compensation payable to the Petitioners for ac"uisitionof the te,tile underta5ing. The Petitioners submit that this is the mostunfair and grossest provisions of the impugned @rdinance !hich ma5es itcompletely unsustainable and violative of mandate of Articles %& %' :%0 ') ***.** is stated to be the amount payable. /o!ever no basis!hatsoever has been disclosed either in the @rdinance or in accompanyingdocument to the earlier +ill !hich is reproduced in verbatim by !ay of thepresent @rdinance. In fact the Petitioners have learnt that the ;espondentsthemselves have valued the assets of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing tothe tune of ;s. %** crores !hereas the amount payable is ;s. & crores andodd !hich is also subject to deductions as per the priorities mentioned inthe -econd -chedule !hich priorities first include the post managementta5eover period liabilities incurred by the ;espondents themselves. ThePetitioners submit that they have large land area. The available H-I :Hloor+ased Inde,? i.e. permissible buildable area< on the basis of % 33.

Considering the present mar5et value at a conservatives estimate of ;s.&*** per s". ft. H-I the value in monetary terms for the lands of thePetitioners company !or5s out more than ;s. 2** crores. +esides thevalue of the Petitioners plant and machinery etc. as of $ecember %''2 is;s. &>3.23 lacs and all these assets are sought to be ta5enover for ameagre sum of ;s. & >0 ') *** !hich demonstrates its illusoriness. Thusthe impugned @rdinance purporting to provide compensation of ;s. &crores and odd is clearly and demonstrably e,propriatory. The amount ofso called compensation is neither just e"uivalent of mar5et value nor anon illusory amount and is clearly an illusory amount and on this countalso the same is liable to declared so.

%>. The Petitioners submit that the purported amount of compensation of ;s.

& >0 ') *** payable to the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing is a pittancecompared to its real value. +esides the said compensation is not payable tothe Petitioner but is liable to be appropriated as per the priority prescribedin -chedule II of the Act. The priority include the post ta5eovermanagement period liabilities created by the mismanagement of the unitby the ;espondents 6TC. The Petitioners submit that the post ta5eoverliabilities inter alia include the trade liabilities and creditors etc. of thete,tile underta5ing of the Petitioners run by 6TC. The Petitioners havefigures available from the ;espondents from the accounts for the years%')0 )( %')) )' and provisional profit and loss account for %st-eptember %''& to 3%st $ecember %''&. The losses for this period aloneis ;s. 22*.>' la5hs. The losses for the previous years for !hich thePetitioners have got the figures are to the tune of ;s. (%%.>' la5hs and thenet losses for the years %''% '2 %''2 '3 and %''3 '& as disclosed bythe ;espondents in ;ajya -abha are ;s. 3.03 ;s. >.(& and ;s. %%.)%crores. These are supposed to be post ta5eover liabilities !hich are to besatisfied from the compensation payable to the Petitioners !hich is ;s.& >0 ') *** . The Petitioners have !or5ed out these figures in a separatestatement in tabular form compiled from figures and documents by 6TCitself. This chart is Anne,ure CC hereto. Thus it is clearly evident thatthere is no surplus of even one paise available after discharging the post


22/26

ta5eover liabilities. In fact the compensation is not sufficient enough foreven the post ta5eover liabilities. Thus for the mismanagement andnegligence of the ;espondents the Petitioners are made to suffer. ThePetitioners therefore submit that the impugned @rdinance is thus clearlye,propriatory and confiscatory in nature and is therefore liable to bedeclared as unconscionable and violative of Articles %& %' :%< :g< of theConstitution of India. Hor the acts of omission and commission of the;espondents themselves the liabilities are sought to be fasten upon thePetitioners. This is clearly impermissible.

%0. The Petitioners further submit that as demonstrated earlier the purported6ationalisation is for augmenting the coffers of 6TC and to subsidise andunder!rite their losses !hich have been incurred by virtue of sheermismanagement corruption inefficiency and incompetence on the part of6TC. +esides the proposed schemes even do not contemplate continuationof PetitionersB Te,tile 4nderta5ing but only to merge !ith otherunderta5ing and li"uidate the assets of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing.Thus the purported ac"uisition is not in public interest or public purpose

but on the contrary not to nationalise the Petitioners te,tile underta5ingand to return it to the Petitioners is for public purpose and in the publicinterest. The Petitioners therefore submit that the purported ac"uisition ofPetitionersB te,tile underta5ing under the impugned @rdinance does notsatisfy the t!in test of ac"uisition vi1 public purpose and only onpayment of an amount !hich is non illusory and just e"uivalent to mar5etvalue as compensation. The Petitioners submit that above principles stillcontinue to be the re"uirements of compulsory ac"uisition in e,ercise ofpo!er of 7minent $omain despite deletion of Article %' :%


23/26

third party v< retail shop building vi< cars and vii< land and buildings: oon ills premises


24/26

3. The Petitioners further submit that this /onBble Court be pleased to issue a !rit of mandamus or a !rit in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate !ritorder or direction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India M

i. restraining the ;espondents from acting upon in furtherance orimplementation or in pursuance to the Te,tile 4nderta5ings:6ationalisation< @rdinance %''>?

ii. for bearing and restraining the ;espondents from ta5ing any stepsincluding the disposal of the assets of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing orany other steps !hatsoever pursuant thereto?

iii. directing the ;espondents to forth!ith handover bac5 possession of thete,tile underta5ing of the Petitioners !ithout responsibility of the liabilitiesof the underta5ing created in post management ta5eover period? i.e. %)th@ctober %')3 till date of such handing over.

2. The Petitioners further submit that it is absolutely just essential necessary and inthe interest of justice that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petitionthis /onBble Court be pleased to stay the operation implementation and e,ecution

of the impugned Te,tile 4nderta5ings :6ationalisation< @rdinance %''> :6o. 0 of%''>< in any manner !hatsoever.

3. The Petitioners further submit that if it is contended by the ;espondents that byvirtue of -ection 2' of the @rdinance the interim orders passed by this /onBbleCourt are no more valid and effective then pending the hearing and final disposalof this petition this /onBble Court be pleased M

i. to restrain the ;espondents from disposing of parting !ith possession orencumbering any other immovable properties fi,ed assets plantmachinery and fi,tures of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing?

ii. to restrain the ;espondents from removing any plant machinery furnitureand fi,tures from the premises of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing?

iii. to restrain the ;espondents from in any manner interfering !ith thepossession of the office premises of the Petitioner Company at theirregistered office !ithout any interference or obstruction of any nature!hatsoever?

iv. to direct the ;espondents to file the monthly statement of profit and lossstoc5s production and employment in respect of use by the ;espondents of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing as directed under order dated 22nd

anuary %')> and submit to the Petitioners the inventory of all assets ason %)th @ctober %')3.

&. The Petitioners submit that it is also absolutely just essential necessary and inthe interest of justice that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petitionthis /onBble Court be pleased to direct that the interim orders passed by this

Court on %(th anuary %')> 22nd anuary %')> and 23rd anuary %')> on CivilAppeal 6o. 2''> of %')& and other companion appeals and miscellaneous matterstherein are operative and binding on the ;espondents.

>. The Petitioners submit that they have demanded justice but the same has beendenied to them. The Petitioners in the circumstances have no alternative e"uallyefficacious remedy e,cept approaching this /onBble Court.

0. The Petitioners are challenging the said @rdinance on the ground of violation of


25/26

their fundamental right under Part III. The present !rit petition under Article 32of the Constitution of India is therefore maintainable. +esides an appeal arisingfrom the previous %')3 Act !hich !as struc5 do!n by the +ombay /igh Court isalso pending before this /onBble Court !hich has been referred to the Constitution+ench for hearing. The Petitioners submit that this /onBble Court therefore has

jurisdiction to entertain try and dispose of this petition in e,ercise of its ordinarycivil jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

(. The Petitioners have not filed any other petition in relation to the subject matterof the present petition either in this /onBble Court or in any /igh Court in thecountry.

). The Petitioners have paid fi,ed court fee of ;s. 3** on this petition.

'. The Petitioners !ill rely upon the documents a list !hereof is hereto anne,ed.The Petitioners Therefore pray

a. :a< that this /onBble Court be pleased to declare that Te,tile 4nderta5ings

:6ationalisation< @rdinance %''> :6o. 0 of %''>< dated 2(th une %''> asconstitutional null and void and ultra vires Articles %& %' :%< :g< and 3**A of the Constitution of India.

b. :b< that this /onBble Court be pleased to issue a !rit of mandamus or a!rit in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate !rit order ordirection under Article 32 of the Constitution of India M

i. :i< restraining the ;espondents from acting upon in furtherance orimplementation or in pursuance to the Te,tile 4nderta5ings:6ationalisation< @rdinance %''>?

ii. :ii< forbearing and restraining the ;espondents from ta5ing anysteps including the disposal of the assets of the PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ing or any other steps !hatsoever pursuant thereto?

iii. :iii< directing the ;espondents to forth!ith handover bac5possession of the te,tile underta5ing of the Petitioners !ithoutresponsibility of the liabilities of the underta5ing created in postmanagement ta5eover period? i.e. %)th @ctober %')3 till date ofsuch handing over?

b. that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition this /onBbleCourt be pleased to stay the operation implementation and e,ecution ofthe impugned Te,tile 4nderta5ings :6ationalisation< @rdinance %''> :6o.0 of %''>< in any manner !hatsoever?

c. pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition this /onBble Court bepleasedM

i. to restrain the ;espondents from disposing of parting !ithpossession or encumbering any other immovable properties fi,edassets plant machinery and fi,tures of the PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ing?

ii. to restrain the ;espondents from removing any plant machineryfurniture and fi,tures from the premises of the PetitionersB te,tileunderta5ing?

iii. to restrain the ;espondents from in any manner interfering !ith thepossession of the office premises of the Petitioner Company at their


26/26

registered office !ithout any interference or obstruction of anynature !hatsoever?

iv. to direct the ;espondents to file the monthly statement of profitand loss stoc5s production and employment in respect of use bythe ;espondents of the PetitionersB te,tile underta5ing as directedunder order dated 22nd anuary %')>?

d. that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition this /onBbleCourt be pleased to direct that the interim orders passed by this court on%(th anuary %'> 22nd anuary %')> and 23rd anuary %')> on CivilAppeal 6o. 2''> of %')& and other companion appeals and miscellaneousmatters therein are operative and binding on the ;espondents?

e. ad interim reliefs in terms of prayers :c< :d< and :e

petition under article 32 of constitution

Documents