Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 6 1960, of the Gujrat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
M. Nanavati, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents.
It was also urged that in fact the companymittee appointed to investigate had number directed its investigation into the question whether the industrial undertaking was 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.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, B. H. Dhebari, and T. M. Sen, for the appellants.
The allegation that the investigating companymittee had number directed its investigation into the question whether the undertaking was being managed in a manner.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.285 of 1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. This appeal by special leave raises a question of the companyrect interpretation of some words in s.18A 1 b of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951.
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 of the investigating companymittee and therefore was arbitrary, capricious and malafide.
August 21.
It is against this decision that the present appeal is directed.
highly detrimental to the scheduled industry companycerned or to public interest was also denied.
226 of the Constitution praying for issue of writs directing the authorised companytroller and the Union of India number 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 companystruction 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 companycerned or to public interest.
434 of 1960.
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.
