http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: SHRI AMBALAL M. SHAH AND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HATHISINGH MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/1961

BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS WANCHOO, K.N. SHAH, J.C. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

CITATION:  1962 AIR  588            1962 SCR  Supl. (3) 171  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1973 SC 389  (12)  C          1981 SC 818  (67,68,69,72,73)

ACT: Industrial  Undertaking-Investigation  into its  affairs  by Central  Government-Taking  over of  management  by  officer appointed  by  Government on the basis  of  report-Legality- Industries  (Development  and Regulation) Act. 1951  (65  of 1951), ss. 15, 18 A(1)(b).

HEADNOTE: Being of the opinion that there had been a substantial  fall in  the volume of production in respect of  cotton  textiles manufactured in the respondent company, an industrial under- taking,  for which having regard to the economic  conditions prevailing   there   was  no  justification,   the   Central Government  made  an  order under  s.15  of  the  Industries (Development  and  Regulation)  Act,,  1951,  appointing   a committee of three persons for the purpose of making a  full and  complete  investigation into the circumstances  of  the case.   After  the  committee made  its  report,the  Central Government  being of the opinion thereupon that the  company was  being managed in a manner highly detrimental to  public interest, made an order under s. 18 A of the Act authorising the first appellant to take over the management of the whole of  the  said undertaking.  The respondents  challenged  the legality of the order on the ground, inter alia, that on the proper  construction  of s.18.A the Central  Government  had the   right  to  make the order under that  section  on  the ground 172 that  the  company  was being managed  in  a  manner  highly detrimental to public interest only where the  investigation made under s.15 was initiated on the basis of the opinion,as mentioned  in  s. 15(b), whereas in the  present  case,  the investigation   ordered  by  the  Central   Government   was initiated on the formation of an opinion as mentioned in cl. (a) (1) of S. 15. Held, that the order passed by the Central Government  under s.  18  A  was  valid  and  that  the  words.  used  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

legislature  in  s.  18A  (1)(b) "in  respect  of  which  an investigation  has been made under s. 15" could not  be  cut down  by  the restricting phrase "based on an  opinion  that the.  industrial  undertaking is being managed in  a  manner highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest." Section  18A  (1)(b)  empowers  the  Central  Government  to authorise  a  person  to  take over  the  management  of  an industrial   undertaking   if  the  one  condition   of   an investigation   made   under  s.  15  had   been   fulfilled irrespective  of  on  what opinion  that  investigation  was initiated, and the further condition is fulfilled that  ’the Central Government was of opinion that such undertaking  was being  managed  in  a  manner  highly  detrimental  to   the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.’285 of 1961. Appeal  from the judgment and- order dated December 6  1960, of  the Gujrat High Court in Special Civil  Application  No. 434 of 1960. H.N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, B. H. Dhebari, and T. M. Sen, for the appellants. I.M. Nanavati, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents. 1961.   August 21.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by DAS GUPTA, J.-This appeal by special leave raises a question of  the correct interpretation of some words in  s.18A(1)(b) of  the Industries (Development and Regulation)  Act,  1951. The Central Government made an order under s. 15 of that Act appointing  a committee of three persons for the purpose  of making full and complete investi- 173 gation  into  the  circumstances of the case as  it  was  of opinion  that  there  had  been.or  was.  likely  to  be  a, substantial fall in the volume of production in respect  of cotton  textiles manufactured in the industrial  undertaking known  as Hathisingh Manufacturing Company Ltd.,  Ahmedabad, for   which  having  regard  to  the   economic   conditions prevailing there was no justification.  After the  committee made  its  report the Central Government  being  of  opinion thereupon that-this industrial undertaking was being managed in  a manner highly detrimental to public interest made  an order  under s.18A of the Act authorising Ambalal Shah  (the first  appellant before us) to take over the  management  of the whole of the said undertaking. Against  this  order  the  industrial  undertaking  and  its proprietor-who  are  the two respondents before  us-filed  a petition  in  the Gujarat High Court under Art. 226  of  the Constitution  praying  for  issue  of  writs  directing  the authorised  controller  and the Union of India not  to  take over  the management on the basis of the order under  s.18A. The main ground on which the application was based was  that on  a  proper  construction  of  s.18A(1)(b)  the Central Government  has the right to make an order  thereunder  only where  the investigation made under s. 15 was  initiated  on the  basis of the opinion as mentioned in  s.15(b)-that  the industrial undertaking is being managed in a  manner highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest.   It was also urged that in fact  the  committee appointed to investigate had not directed its  investigation into  the  question whether the industrial  undertaking  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

being  managed  in the  manner mentioned above.   The  other grounds  mentioned  in  the  petition  which  were  however’ abandoned at the time of the hearing included one that.  the alleged opinion formed by the Government as mentioned in the order under s.18A was in the absence of any material for the same in the report 174 of the investigating committee and therefore’ was arbitrary, capricious and malafide. On bahalf of the Government and the authorised controller it was  urged that the question which one of the five  opinions mentioned  ins.  15 formed the basis  of  the  investigation under  that section was wholly immaterial.   The  allegation that  the  investigating  committee  had  not  directed  its investigation into the question whether the undertaking  was being  managed  in  a  manner.  highly  detrimental  to  the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest was  also denied. The  High  Court however came to the conclusion  that  on  a correct  construction  of  s. 18A (1)(b)  it  was  necessary before   any  order  could  be  made  thereunder  that   the investigation should have been initiated on the basis of the opinion  mentioned in s.15(b) of the Act.  It also  accepted the  petitioners’  contention that no investigation  had  in fact  been held into the question, whether  the  undertaking was  being managed in a manner highly detrimental to  public interest.   Accordingly it made an order "setting aside  the order  of the Central Government dated 28th July, 1960,  and directing the respondents not to interfere with or take over the  management of the undertaking of the first  petitioner, namely  "Hathisingh Mills" by virtue of or in  pursuance  of the  said  order".   It is against this  decision  that  the present appeal is directed. The  principal question in appeal is whether the High  Court is right in its view as regards the construction of  section 18A.  The relevant portion of s.18A(1) runs thus               "If the Central Government is of opinion that-               (a)       x       x        x       x               (b)  an industrial undertaking in  respect  of               which an investigation has been made under  s.               15 (whether or not any directions                                    175               have   been  issued  to  the  undertaking   in               pursuance of section 16), is being managed  in               a  manner highly detrimental to the  scheduled               industry concerned or to public interest,  the               Central  Government  may, by  notified  order,               authorise  any  person or body of  persons  to               take  over the management of the whole or  any               part  of  the undertaking or  to  exercise  in               respect of the whole or any part of the under-               taking  such  functions of control as  may  be               specified in the order............." The  dispute  is  over the construction  of  the  words  "an ]investigation has been made under section 15".  Section  15 is in these words "Where the Central Government is of the opinion that-               (a)in  respect  of any scheduled  industry  or               industrial undertaking or undertakings-               (i)there  has  been,  or is  likely  to  be  a               substantial fall in the, volume of  production               in respect of any article or class of articles               relatable  to that industry, or  manufactured,               or  produced in the industrial undertaking  or               undertakings,  as the case may be,  for  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

             having  regard  to  the  economic   conditions               prevailing, there is no justification ; or               (ii)there has been or is likely to be a marked               deterioration in the quality of any article or               class  of articles relatable to that  industry               or manufactured or produced in the  industrial               undertaking  or undertakings, as the case  may               be,  which could have been or can be  avoided;               or               (iii)there  has been or is likely to  be,,  a               rise  in the price of an article or  class  of               articles   recitable  to  that   industry   or               manufactured  or produced ’in  the  industrial               undertaking or undertakings.  As the                                    176               case  may  be         for which there   is  on               justification;  or               (iv)it is necessary to take any such action as               is provided in this Chapter for the purpose of               conserving    any   resources   of    national               importance which are utilized in the  industry               or,    the    industrial    undertaking     or               undertakings, as the case may               be ;or               (b)any  industrial  undertaking  is   being               managed    in  a manner highly detrimental  to               the scheduled industry concerned or to  public               interest, the, Central Government may make  or               cause   to  be  made  a  full   and   complete investigation   into the circumstances of  the               case  by such person or body of persons as  it               may appoint for the purpose." It may be mentioned here that s.15(b) as it originally stood was amended in 1955 and it was after the amendment that  the words as mentioned above appear.  Reference may also be made in  passing to s16 under which once an  investigation  under s.15 has been commenced or completed the central  Government if  it  considers  desirable, may issue  directions  to  the industrial undertaking or undertakings concerned in  several matters.   Section  17 of the original Act was  repealed  in 1953  by Act 26 of 1953.  The same amending  Act  introduced into this Act two new chapters Chapter IIIA and Chapter IIIB of  which s.18A in Chapter IIIA makes provisions as set  out above  for an order, by the Central Government   authorising any person or body of persons to take over the management of the whole or any part of the under- taking. These  provisions of s. 18A it may be mentioned take -the, place  of  :the.  provisions that  previously  appeared  in s.17(1).  That  section,  now repealed,  had  empowered  the Central  Government to authorise any person, or  development council or any other 177 body   of  person,%  to  take,over  the  management  of   an undertaking  or  to  exercise  with  respect  thereto   such functions of. control- as might be provided by the order, in one  class of cases only-viz., where after a  direction  had been  issued in, pursuance of s. 16 the  Central  Government was  of  opinion that the directions had not  been  complied with and that the industrial undertaking in respect of which directions  had  been issued was being managed in  a  manner highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest.  The present s.ISA empowers the  Government to  authorise  any  person  or  persons  to  take  over  the management or to excercise such functions of control as  may be  specified, in two classes of cases. the first  of  these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

classes is mentioned in el. (a) of s.18A(1), viz., where the Central Government, is of opinion that directions issued  in pursuance  of  s.16  have  not  been  complied  with  by  an industrial undertaking.  The second class with which we  are here directly concerned is mentioned in el. (b)-viz.,  where the Central Government is of the opinion that an  industrial undertaking  in respect of which an investigation  has  been made  under  s.15  is  being  managed  in  a  manner  highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest  irrespective  of whether any directions  had  been issued  in pursuance of s.16 or not.  What is noticeable  in the  wording of this clause is that while  an  investigation under  s.15  may be initiated in respect  of  an  industrial undertaking  where the Central Government is of any  of  the five   opinions   mentioned   in   s.15(a)(i),    15(a)(ii), 15(a)(iii),  15(a)(iv)  and s.15(b),  s.18A(1)(b)  does  not refer to any of these opinions( Indeed, it does not refer at all  to the question of the initiation of the  investigation and  mentions  only the making of  the  investigation  under s.15.  Read  without  the addition  of  anything  more,  the language   of   s.18  A  (1)  (b)   empowers   the   Central Government.to authorise a person or persons to take over the management of an industrial undertaking 178 or to exercise specified functions of control in respect  of that  undertaking,if the one condition of  an  investigation made  under s.15 has been fulfilled irrespective of on  what opinion  that  investigation was initiated and  the  further condition  is  fufillled that the Central Government  is  of opinion  that such undertaking is being managed in a  manner highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest. The  contention made on behalf of the respondents before  us which  found  favour with the High Court is  that  when  the legislature  used the words "an investigation has been  made under  s.15" it meant "an investigation has been made  under s.15 based on an opinion of the Central Government that  the industrial  undertaking is being managed in a manner  highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest."  We should have thought that if  the  legislature wanted  to  express  such an intention  it  would  not  have hesitated to use the additional words mentioned above,.   It was urged, however, on behalf of the respondents that  these further  words, viz., "’based on an opinion of  the  Central Government that the industrial undertaking is being  managed in  a  manner highly detrimental to the  scheduled  industry concerned  or to public interest" are implicit in cl.(b)  of s.18A.  In  his  lengthy  address  to  convince  us  of  the correctness of this contention the learned counsel  advanced in  substance only two arguments.  The first is that  it  is only  where the investigation under s.15 is initiated on  an opinion mentioned in s.15(b)-that the industrial undertaking is  being  managed  in a manner highly  detrimental  to  the scheduled  industry concerned or to public interestthat  the report of the investigation can furnish the government  with materials  on  which  any  opinion can  be  formed  that  an industrial  undertaking is being managed in a manner  highly detrimental  to  the  scheduled  industry  concerned  or  to public  inter est.  For this argument we can find no  basis. It appears to 170 us  that  where  the investigation has  been  initiated,  in respect  of  an industrial undertaking, on an  opinion  that there  has been or is likely to be a fall in the  volume  of production   for  which  having  regard  to   the   economic

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

conditions  there  is  no  justification  s.15(a)(i)  or  an opinion  that  there has been or is likely to be  a  marlied deterioration in the quality of any article which could have been or can be avoided s.15(a)(ii); or an opinion that there has  been  or  is likely to be a rise in the  price  of  any article for which there is no justification s.15(a)(iii); or an  opinion  that  it is necessary to take  action  for  the purpose  of conserving any resources of national  importance s.15 (a)(iv), the investigation in order to be complete must also   consider  the  quality  of  the  management  of   the undertaking  just  as it would so consider  the  quality  of management  where  the  investigation  is  initiated  on  an opinion that the industrial undertaking is being managed  in a  manner  highly  detrimental  to  the  scheduled  industry concerned  or  to  public  interest.   For,  even  when  the investigation has been initiated on the Government’s forming any of the opinions mentioned in the four sub-clauses of el. (a)  of  s.15, the investigator has necessarily  to  examine three  matters  :  (1) whether the  opinion  formed  by  the Government is correct; secondly, what are the causes of this state of things, viz., the unjustifiable fall in the  volume of  production  or the deterioration in the quality  of  the article  or  the rise in the price of the  articles  or  the necessity  of  an action for the purpose of  conserving  the resources  ;  and thirdly how this state of  things,  if  it exists can be remedied.  In considering the second of  these matters,  viz.,  the  cause  of this  state  of  things  the investigator  must  examine how far and in what  manner  the quality of management is responsible for it.  He may come to the conclusion that the management is in no way  responsible and  that  some  other  cause  lies  at  the  root  of   the difficulty. He may hold on the other hand, that the 180 management  is solely responsible or he may hold that  while other causes. also play their part the defect in the quality of management is.., also in  part responsible.. Indeed,  we find  it difficult to understand how an investigator  having embarked  on an investigation. ordered by the Government  in respect of an industrial undertaking on the basis of one  or more  of  the opinions mentioned in s. 15 (a) can  avoid  an inquiry into the quality of the management of the industrial undertaking.   It  is said that the use of  the  words  "for which  having regard to the economic  conditions  prevailing there  is  no  justification" in  cl.  (a)(i)  indicate  and circumscribe   the  scope  of  the  enquiry  and  that   the investigator would only try to ascertain whether or not  the economic  conditions are such that do or do not justify  the fall  in  the volume of production and then  to  see,  where necessary, how these economic conditions can be altered.  To say  so  is  however  to  miss  the  entire  scheme  of  the legislation  providing for the investigation and for  action following   the   same.   Clearly,  the  purpose   of   this legislation  is  to,enable the Central  Government  to  take suitable  action to remedy the undesirable state  of  things mentioned  in the different clauses of s.15. In  order  that Government may have proper materials to know what action  is necessary  the legislature empowered the Government to  make or cause to be made "a full and complete investigation".  In s. 18, it empowered the person or body of persons  appointed to  make  investigation  to  choose  one  or  more   persons possessing special knowledge to assist in the  investigation and further vested the investigating committee with all  the powers  of.  the  Civil,  Court  under  the  Code  of  Civil Procedure,  for the purpose of taking  evidence,..  on  oath and  for,    enforcing  the   attendance  of  witnesses  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

compelling     the    production    of    documents     and, material..objects.  The  whole purpopse of  the  legislation would be frustrated unless the investigation could be  "full and complete." No 181 investigation  which  has  not  ’examined  the  quality   of management of the industrial undertaking could be said to be full or complete. It   was   next  contended  that  the  use  of   the   words "circumstances of the case" shows that the investigation had to  be  made only into the matter in respect  of  which  the government has formed an opinion and not into anything else. Assuming  that  it  is so  and--that  the  investigator  has primarily   to   conduct   his   investigation   where   the investigation has been initiated on the basis of an  opinion as  regards fall in production, into questions  as regards such fall ; and similarly, where the investigation has  been initiated  on  an opinion as regards  the  deterioration  in quality, into the question of such deterioration, that  does not  other the fact that the investigator would have to  try to  ascertain the causes of the fall in production  or:  the deterioration in quality and this part, of the investigation would necessarily include an investigation into the  quality of the management. Learned  Counsel contended that if an investigation made  on the  basis of one or more of the opinions mentioned  in  el. (a) of s.15 was sufficient to furnish the materials on which the  Government  could  form an opinion whether  or  not  an industrial undertaking was being managed in a manner  highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest, el. (b) would by wholly unnecessary.  With this we are  unable to agree.  There may be many cases  where  there may be information justifying the formation of opinion  that the  industrial  undertaking was being managed in  a  manner highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest, even though,.there are no materials for  an opinion  that  there  has  been  or  is  likely  to  be   an unjustifiable fall   in  production   or   an   avoidable deterioration in quality or an unjustifiable rise in  prices or  the  necessity  of  taking action  for  the  purpose  of conserving resources as 182 mentioned in the four sub-clauses of cl. (a) of s.15. It  was  also urged that it would be unfair  to  expect  the management,  where the investigation has been  initiated  on the  formation of an opinion as mentioned in cl.  15(a),  to lead  any evidence as regards the quality of its  management and  so there is risk of the investigator being misled.   We can  see  no reason however for any management to  have  any doubt  on the question that investigation would be  directed among other things to the question of quality of management. We believe that one of the first things that any  management would do when an investigation is initiated  on the basis of any  such opinion would be to try to show how  efficient  it was  and how in spite of the high quality of,its  management the  misdeeds  of labour or the  unsympathetic  attitude  of Government  or the difficulties of transport or  some  other cause   beyond  their  control  was  responsible   for   the undesirable state of things into which the investigation was being held. The  argument that except where the investigation  has  been initiated  on the basis of an opinion mentioned in s.  15(b) there  would  be no material for the Government to  form  an opinion that the industrial undertaking was being managed in a  manner  highly  detrimental  to  the  scheduled  industry

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

concerned or to public interest, therefore fails. Equally  untenable  is the second argument advanced  by  the learned  counsel  that absurd results would  follow  if  the words  "investigation  has been made under section  16"  are held to include investigations based on any of the  opinions mentioned  in  s.15(a).  Asked to mention  what  the  absurd results would be the learned counsel could only say that  an order  under s. 18A(1)(b) would be unfair in such cases,  as the owner of an industrial undertaking would have no  notice that the quality of management was being investigated.  That will be says 183 the  learned  counsel, condemning a  person  unheard.   This argument  is  really based on the assumption that  when  the investigation has been initiated on the basis of any of  the opinions mentioned in cl. (a), the quality of the management will not be investigated As we have stated earlier, there is no basis for this assumption. We  have  therefore come to the conclusion  that  the  plain words  used  by  the legislature "in  respect  of  which  an investigation has been made under section 15" cannot be  cut down  by the restricting phrase "based oil an  opinion  that the  industrial  undertaking is being managed  in  a  manner highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned or to public   interest."   We  must   therefore   hold   that,the construction  placed  by the High Court on  these  words  in s.18A(1)(b) is not correct. This  brings us to the consideration of the  other  question raised,  viz. , whether in fact the investigation  had  been held into. the question whether. the industrial  undertaking was  being  managed in a manner highly  detrimental  to  the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest.  On this question the High Court came to a conclusion adverse to  the appellants.   It  is not clear how  the  respondents  though abandoning the ground that Government had nonmaterial before it  for forming the opinion that the undertaking  was  being managed  in  a manner highly detrimental  to  the  scheduled industry  concerned or to public interest, could still  urge that  no  investigation  had been  actually  held  into  the question  whether  the  industrial  undertaking  was   being managed  in  a manner highly detrimental  to  the  scheduled industry  concerned  or to public  interest.   The  question whether investigation had in fact been held or not into  the question  whether  the  industrial  undertaking  was   being managed  in  a Manner highly detrimental  to  the  scheduled industry concerned or to public interest, would be  relevant only to show that the Government 184 acted  without any material before it or acted  mala  facie. If the allegation of’ mala fide or the allegation that there was  no  material  before the  Government  for  forming  its opinion is abandoned, the question whether an  investigation had  in  fact  been  held  into  the  question  whether  the industrial undertaking was being managed in a manner  highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned or to public interest, becomes irrelevant. We  are satisfied however that the High Court was  wrong  in its view that it was not established that investigation  had in  fact  been held into this question.  We  find  that  the assertion   in  the  petition  under  Art.  226   that   the investigation  had  not been directed "towards  any  alleged mismanagement  of  the mills" was denied  in  the  affidavit sworn on behalf ’of the Union of India.  When thereafter  on October 10, 1960, affidavits in rejoinder filed on behalf of the  petitioners affirmed ’that "no question was  put  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

would suggest that the committee was investigating into  any mismanagement  of the mills," an affidavit of Mr. Thomas  de Sa,  who  was a member of the investigating  committee  was, filed on behalf of the Union of India.  This affidavit  made the categorical assertion that the "committee"  investigated not  only  into  the question relating to the  fall  in  the volume   of  production  in  respect  of   cotton   textiles manufactured  in  the said industrial undertaking  but  also made   a   full   and  complete   investigation   into   the circumstances   of  the  working  of  the  said   industrial undertaking  including  the  management thereof  and  as  to whether  the said undertaking was being managed in a  manner detrimental   to  the  industry  concerned  or   to   public interest." The High Court has thought it fit to reject  this testimony of Mr. De Sa for reasons which appear to us to  be wholly insufficient.  It appears that during the hearing the Advocate-General  asked  for  time  to  file  an   affidavit preferably  of  Mr. P. H. Bhuta who was.  the  lion-official member  of  t he Committee of investigation  but  ultimately filed the 185 affidavit of Mr. De Sa and not the affidavit of’ Mr.  Bhuta. The  High  Court seems to think that as.  Mr. Bhuta  was  an independent member of the investigation committee while  Mr. De  Sa  was in the service of the Government  Mr.  De  Sa’s, statement is open to suspicion.  In our view such  suspicion of, high- public officials is not ordinarily .,justified., Mr.  De  Sa  was  as much  a  member  of  the  investigating committee  as Mr. Bhuta and so no less, competent--than  Mr. Bhuta to testify as regards the matter in issue.  We do  not think  it right to suspect his honesty merely because he  is an  officer of the Union of India.  The learned  judges  of the High, Court, appear also to have lost sight of, the fact that the questionnaire which annexed as annexure X to.  the, affidavit of the second respondent Rajendra Prasad Manek Lal itself   includes   a  number  of   questions   which   show unmistakably  that  the  quality  of  management  was  being enquired into. A  circumstance which appears to have weighed with the  High Court  is  that  the report of the committee  which  as  the learned  judges  rightly say would be the best  evidence  to show  "that  there  was in fact an  investigation  into  the question of the management of the said undertaking" was  not produced by the Union of India when called upon to do so  by I. &.  Nanavati on behalf of the petitioners.  It is  proper to  mention that it does not appear that the learned  judges themselves  directed  or  desired  the  Advocate-General  to produce the report for their inspection.  It further appears that no written application for the production of the  docu- ment  was  made on behalf of the petitioners.  It  does  not seem to us to be fair to draw an inference against the Union of   India  merely  because  an  informal  request  by   the petitioners’  advocate was not acceded to.  In view of  what happened in the court below we asked the appellants’ counsel whether  he  was prepared to produce the report  before  us. The  learned counsel readily produced the report  and  after examining the relevant portion 186 where  the report deals with the question of management,  we read it out in Court so that the respondents’ counsel  could know  the exact situation.  This portion of the report  says :-,,that  the  management  is in the hands of  a  young  and inexperienced person ; and the committee of the opinion that the present manager is incapable of handling the affairs  of the  mills  ; the present managing agents are  incapable  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

investing any further  The fact that the report does contain such an opinion is sufficient to show that an  investigation was  actually held into the question of the quality  of  the management as affirmed by Mr. De Sa.  The High Court’s  view therefore that. no investigation was hold into the  question of the management of the undertaking wag wrong. We   have  therefore  come  to  the  conclusion   that   the respondents  were not entitled to any writ  directing  these appellants  not  to give effect to the,  Government’s  order under s-18A(1)(b).  We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court directing the issue of the  writ and  order  that-the  application  under  Art.  226  of  the Constitution  be dismissed.  The appellants will  get  their costs both here and below. Apnpeal allowed. 187