Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8561/2002 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8561 of 2002
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
IPCL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SHALIN N MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
MR DEVANG NANAVATI for Respondent(s) :
1,
MR KL PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 01/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
This
petition has been filed by the Union- IPCL Employees Association.
Main prayer of the petitioners is for supplying of Shareholders’
Agreement entered into between the Government of India and the
Strategic Partner Reliance Petroinvestment Limited. In paragraph
19(A), the prayer has been worded in following manner :
“19.
xxxxx
A) Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents herein
to make public or to disclose the Shareholders’ Agreement signed
between the Government of India and the Strategic Partner Reliance
Petroinvestment Limited, and to further supply a copy of the
Shareholders’ Agreement to the petitioner union:”
Though
there are other prayers incidental to the said main prayer, the
entire focus of the petitioners is on obtaining copy of the said
document.
The
said prayer is made in the background of the fact that at the time
when the petitioners approached the High Court, the employer company
– IPCL was undergoing disinvestment. IPCL till then was
Government owned company. It is the case of the petitioners that when
such Government owned company was being privatized, consultation of
the unions of the workers of the company was necessary. It was in
this background that the petitioners required the said document to be
able to oppose any disinvestment plan.
Learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that Union of India at the
relevant time did not supply such document. In the affidavit filed
before the Court also, no privilege had been claimed. Any stand that
in the interest of security such document could not have been
supplied was not valid. The stand that the petitioners have no locus
standi was not valid. He relied on paragraphs 54, 56 and 61 of the
decision reported in Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) V/s Union of
India and others reported in (2002)2 SCC 333 in support of his
contentions.
Learned
counsel for respondent no.2, however, submitted that disinvestment
took place long back. Such documents could be claimed by the
petitioners even under the Right to Information Act now. No useful
purpose would be served in giving any directions as prayed for by the
petitioners.
In
Balco Employees’ Union (supra), the Apex Court has observed in
paragraph 59 as under:
“59. In
this connection, we approve the following observations of the
Karnataka High Court in Prof.Babu Mathew V.Union of India where the
Court while dealing with disinvestment upto 49% of the Government’s
holding in a public sector company observed at p.478G-H as follows:
“Any
economic reform, including disinvestment in PSEs is intended to shake
the system for public good. The intention of disinvestment is to make
PSEs more efficient and competitive and perform better. The concept
of the public sector and what should be the role of the public sector
in the development of the country, are matters of policy closely
linked to economic reforms. While it is true that any policy of the
Government should be in public interest, it is not shown how prior
consultation with employees of a PSE before disinvestment is a facet
of such public interest.”
Prima
facie, in view of the observations of the Apex Court, petitioners
appear to be correct in contending that they had a voice at the time
when disinvestment process was going on and for that purpose certain
essential documents would be required to be supplied to them.
In
the present case, however, disinvestment took place many years back.
The entire process is over. No useful purpose would be served in
directing supplying of these documents to the petitioners. The
petition is disposed of leaving legal question open to be decided in
appropriate case. This petition is disposed of accordingly.
(
Akil Kureshi, J )
srilatha
Top