K S NARAYANAN IYER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5th July, 1994 dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is an erstwhile shareholder and Managing Director of a company known as 'M/s. Kottayam Textiles Limited'. M/s. Kottayam Textiles Limited was running a textile mill at Ettumanoor in Kottayam District. This textile unit had run into severe financial troubles and was closed for a considerably long period. By a notification dated 6-2-1978 issued under S.18AA of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, the Central Government superseded the Board of Directors of the company and appointed an authorised agent to manage the textile unit. Despite the Central Government pumping in large finances, the viability of the textile unit did not show any improvement and, finally, the textile unit and all assets of the company were taken over by an Act known as 'The Kerala Sick Textile Undertaking (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1985 (Act 27 of 1985). This Act was reserved for the assent of the President and received assent of the President on 14th October, 1985 and was published in the Kerala Gazette, Extraordinary No. 830 dated 15th October, 1985. This Act came into force from 5th October, 1984. By reason of S.3 of this Act, with effect from the appointed day (1st September, 1983) as defined in S.2(a), every sick textile undertaking and the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to every such sick textile undertaking stood transferred to, and vested absolutely in the State Government. Immediately thereafter, the right, title and interest of the erstwhile owner stood transferred under sub-s.(2) of S.3 and vested in the State Textile Corporation, which is respondent No. 3 before us.

(3.) The petitioner challenges the validity of the provisions of the Kerala Sick Textile Undertaking (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on several grounds. Though the contentions raised are somewhat diffused and generalized, we have been able to gather that, principally, the validity of the provisions of the Act have been impugned as being violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Art.14, 19(1)(g) and 21 read with Art.300A of the Constitution.