Loading...

A.K. Roy vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 January, 2004

Jharkhand High Court
A.K. Roy vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: IV (2004) BC 323, 2004 (1) JCR 534 Jhr
Author: P Balasubramanyan
Bench: P Balasubramanyan, T Sen


JUDGMENT

P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.

1. The prayer in this writ petition filed by a citizen is for the issue of a direction to the respondents not to close the Project & Development India Limited at Sindri in the State of Jharkhand. There is also a prayer for the issue of a direction to the respondents to save and project the Research and Development Division of the Project & Development India Limited. It is seen that the matter is pending before the Board, for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR)/Moreover, it is also seen, as stated in paragraph 41 of the counter affidavit that in national interest, the Company has been revived after pruning the manpower to the optimum level. The counter affidavit also gives a picture of whatever has been done to save the company.

2. In such matter the jurisdiction of the Court even in a public interest litigation is limited. This is clear from the decision in Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2002 (1) JCR 339 (SC) : 2002 (2) SCC 333. It is, therefore, not possible to enter into the arena as to the process by which the company can be saved or restructured. It is policy decision to be taken based on relevant matters.

3. It is seen that the decision on the closure of the Research wing which is the main target of attack by the petitioner, was approved by the Central Government after taking note of the entire circumstances. The company itself had taken that decision after weighing the pros and cons, here again, as a matter of policy, and ensuring the economic viability of the company. On the materials it is seen that steps have been taken carefully and after considering all the relevant aspects. There is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness shown in the decision making process.

4. In this situation, we are not satisfied that we would be justified in interfering in this public interest litigation. We therefore dismiss the same, but we make it clear that if the petitioner has the locus standi
to put forward his contentions before the
Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), this dismissal will not
stand in the way of his doing so.

PIL dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information