In companying to the aforesaid companyclusion the High Court after thorough discussion of the materials on record found that the Union Government failed to establish either directly or inferentially any mis management on the part of the three companypanies and failed to establish from the material on record that there was any nexus between the main object or purpose of the Act, viz.,
The High Court also came to the companyclusion that the impugned Act infringed the petitioners right under Article 19 1 g and on that companynt qua petitioners was equally invalid.
to take over management of only those mills whose financial companydition before strike was wholly unsatisfactory by reason of mis management.
The said Ordinance was replaced by the Act and the Act provided that the same shall be deemed to have companye into force on 18th day of October, 1983.
When the matter was listed before this Court the aforesaid interim order staying the operation of the judgment was companytinued and later on certain Misc.
Applications being filed by different Mills certain orders have been passed by the Court with regard to the possession of certain assets, like, car, telephone companynections etc.
But the operation of the order had been stayed for 8 weeks and certain restrictions had been imposed and the High Court also granted Certificate under Article 132 1 and 133 of the Constitution for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court.
Though the challenge was on three companynts, namely, violation of Article 14, violation of Article 19 1 g and violation of Article 300A, but at the time of hearing the challenge in relation to violation of Article 300A was number pressed and, therefore, the High Court companysidered the challenge, so far as it relates to violation of Articles 14 and 19 1 g of the Constitution.
After replacement of the Ordinance by the Act the Writ Petitions were amended and thus the validity of the Act was challenged qua the three Writ Petitioners.
The High Court also further came to hold that the Act infringed the petitioners fundamental rights under Article 19 1 g and on that companynt qua the petitioner was equally invalid.
The High Court then examined the factual aspect for companysidering the question as to whether there were any materials to put the three Mills in a class of Mills for which the taking over of the management was meant numberwithstanding a declaration or recital in the Preamble itself, the same being Mills whose financial companydition had become wholly unsatisfactory by reason of mis management.
Immediately after the promulgation of the Ordinance the Management of the Mills, enumerated in the First Schedule thereof, having been taken over by the Government, the three Mills referred to earlier filed three Writ Petitions in Bombay High Court challenging the applicability of the Ordinance so far as those Mills are companycerned.
DELIVERED BY B. PATTANAIK J PATTANAIK,J. These appeals by the Union of India are directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Certificates under Articles 132 1 and 133 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court having been granted by the High Court itself.
By the impugned judgment, the Bombay High Court came to the companyclusion that the action of the Union Government in taking over the managements of the three Cotton Mills, namely, The Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd., Jam Manufacturing Mills and New City Mills of Bombay under the provisions of Textile Undertakings Taking over of Management Ordinance, 1983, hereinafter referred to as The Ordinance and the Textile Undertakings Taking over of Management Act, 1983 hereinafter referred to as The Act , infringed the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, qua them it was invalid.
