HINDUSTAN TELEPRINTERS EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Public Interest Litigation preferred by the employees' Union , representing the workmen of the erstwhile fourth respondent, which is now under the management of the third respondent-Company.

(2.) THE prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare the decision of the first respondent of disinvesting its shares in the fourth respondent in favour of the third respondent as illegal and void and consequently direct the first respondent to take appropriate action for re-transfer of 74% of holdings from the third respondent to itself, apart from recovering all funds and damages suffered by the fourth respondent during the period when it was under the management of the third respondent. THE petitioner also seeks for a further direction to the fifth respondent-CBI to investigate the transaction of disinvestment for offences and prosecute those responsible for the said transaction.

(3.) AS far as the merits of the case in attacking the process of disinvestment is concerned, here again, apart from the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition disclose that the sole allegation is perversity and arbitrariness in applying the valuation methodology, namely'discounted Cash Flow'method (hereinafter referred to as "the DCF method" ). In fact, in paragraph 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is categorically stated that the petitioner is not questioning the policy of privatisation or even the valuation methodology chosen, namely the DCF method. Apart from the said averments contained in paragraph 13 of the affidavit, the only other averment, where certain allegations are made, are found in paragraph 11 of the affidavit, where the petitioner would only contend that the balance sheet of the fourth respondent-Company as on 31. 3. 2001 discloses a surplus of more than Rs. 125 crores and in the circumstances, the disinvestment made by fixing the value at rs. 55 crores in favour of the third respondent, would amount to undue favouritism shown to the third respondent. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while making his submissions, therefore contended that the said factor would go to show that there was perversity and arbitrariness in applying the valuation methodology, namely the DCF method, while ordering disinvestment in favour of the third respondent.