VEENA KALRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed in public interest seeks a direction to the respondents "to make necessary and suitable amendments/modifications implementing the Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court" in Union of India Vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association : 2010 (5) SCALE 514, with respect to selection and appointment to the post of Member (Technical) in Company Law Board (CLB); a writ of quo warranto for quashing the appointment of respondent No. 5 Mr. A. Bandopadyay as Member (Technical) of the CLB in pursuance to the Office Order dated 30.04.2012, as being contrary to the Guidelines aforesaid, is also sought. Notice of the petition was issued and a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 UOI and the respondent No. 2 Ministry of Corporate Affairs and also by the respondent No. 5 Mr. A. Bandopadyay and to which rejoinders have been filed by the petitioner. The counsels have been heard.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the notice dated 10.06.2011 inviting applications for the post of Members in CLB. The said notice inter alia states that as per the Company Law Board (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 1993, a person shall not be qualified for appointment as Technical Member unless he/she: -

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has urged that though Parts IB and IC of the Companies Act struck down by the Supreme Court pertain to National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) respectively, but CLB constituted under Part IA of the Companies Act has the same powers as NCLT and NCLAT and thus what has been held by the Supreme Court qua qualifications of Member (Technical) of NCLT and NCLAT would equally apply to CLB also. Reliance is also placed on Dharam Godha Vs. Universal Paper Mills Ltd. where the learned Judge has lamented on outsourcing of judicial work, earlier before the Courts, to Tribunals manned by bureaucrats or non judicial members with no legal training or acumen, thereby making justice a casualty. It is thus the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5 Mr. A. Bandopadyay as Member (Technical) of the CLB in contravention of the Guidelines laid down in the judgment supra of the Supreme Court is liable to be quashed.