VASANT RAO DATTAJI DHANEATEY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners before this Court are the legal heirs of original partners of a partnership firm by name M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works. The petition as filed contends that in view of provisions of Maharashtra Act No. XXXVI of 1984, Respondent No. 1 is entitled to take over only "the industrial undertaking" of said firm shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, and the other property which is not comprised therein cannot be so acquired. It is stated that Plot No. 388 at ghat Road, Nagpur and two godowns on it do not form the part of said industrial undertaking and hence respondents cannot acquire those godowns in view of the said Act.

(2.) All the counsel have at the outset stated that validity of the Ordinance by which the provision was made for acquisition and transfer of said undertaking and thereafter validity of above referred Maharashtra Act has been challenged by petitioners in independent writ petition which was earlier filed at Bombay having registration as Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1984, it is an admitted position that said writ petition is now transferred to this Bench and has been registered as Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1999. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the grievance and subject matter of Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1999 is entirely different and is not eclipsed in any way by the decision of Writ Petition No. 1490 of 1992. He states that by deciding Writ Petition No. 1490 of 1992 either way, the challenge to constitutional or otherwise of above referred maharashtra Act in Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1999 is not affected in any manner. The learned agp has, however, tried to contend that the present writ petition cannot be considered until and unless Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1999 is first decided. We find no merit in stand of assistant Government Pleader.

(3.) The petitioners state that firm has been dissolved sometime in January, 1974 and a suit for dissolution and for rendition of accounts is pending vide Civil Suit No. 9 of 1974. The petitioners (original) were appointed as receiver of said partnership by order dated 21. 7. 1978 in that suit. The government desired to take over the press as management of press was not in a position to run the industry and hence bill was introduced for amending industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and extending the operation of that Act to printing industries including the Litho printing. As a result of this amendment, the first Schedule of the Act was amended and entry No. 38 (5) was added which read "printing including Litho Printing Industry". This was brought into effect with retrospective effect from 30. 12. 1978. On 23. 8. 1980, Union of india i. e. Respondent No. 2 issued an order under Section 18-AA (1) (B) of above referred industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and authorised Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited to take over the management of the whole industrial undertaking of M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition No. 2741 of 1980 and on 28. 4. 1982, this Court vide its judgment quashed and set aside that order of Union of India. The development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited challenged this judgment of the High Court before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave petition No. 5160 of 1983 and while granting special Leave to appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court restricted it only to the question whether the development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited was entitled to take possession of plot of land admeasuring 3. 5 acres i. e. Plot No. 388 on which two godowns are situated. The receiver was permitted to continue in possession of godown. Later on, this Special Leave Petition has been disposed of as infructuous on 4. 2. 1992.