VISHNU DAYAL JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the order of the Central Government taking over the management of the Sugar Mill of the appellant under R. 125-A of the Defence of India Rules and appointing an authorised controller of the said Mill thereunder is valid, is the principal question which falls for determination in this appeal by certificate.

(2.) The main contention of Mr. S. T. Desai, learned counsel for the appellant, is that on a proper construction of R. 125-A of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the order taking over the management of the Sugar Mill under this rule is invalid, as on the date of the order the Sugar Mill was closed and the appellant had no intention of reopening the same. It has not been disputed that if the order of the take over of the management is held to be valid, the appellant will not be entitled to any relief and the appeal must fail.

(3.) We may observe that the question whether the Mill was closed or not on the date the order taking over the management and appointing an authorised Controller under R. 125 was passed, is in serious dispute. However, for the purpose of deciding the question raised in this appeal, it does not become necessary to go into any dispute with regard to the facts. We propose to proceed on the basis that the Mill had remained closed and the appellant had shut it down permanently on the date the order came to be passed, as, in our opinion, the order in question, even if the same be held to have been passed at the time when the Mill was lying so closed, must be held to be perfectly valid on a proper interpretation of R. 125-A. As in our opinion, on a proper interpretation of R. 125-A, the order in question is lawful and justified even if we accept the submission of Mr. Desai that the Mill was factually so closed, it does not become necessary for us to advert to the facts of this particular case. The real question is one of interpretation of R. 125-A.