JUDGMENT
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. The petitioner-company has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated August 17, 1995 (exhibit 5) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby, the representation of the petitioner-company for seeking exemption from the provisions of Rule 3(i)(a) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, for keeping deposits beyond the period of maturity and up to tight years with effect from April 1, 1998, has been rejected.
2. On several grounds raised in this petition the impugned order at exhibit 5 has been challenged by the petitioner but I am not required to go into all because in my opinion on the first ground namely regarding violation of the principle of natural justice in the sense that without hearing the petitioner-company the impugned order at exhibit 5 is passed, this petition is required to be allowed.
3. However, learned counsel Shri P.P. Chaudhary for the respondents raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that when there is an alternative, statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner against the impugned order at exhibit 5 the petitioner-company should avail of that remedy of appeal before the Company Law Board. This was seriously objected to by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the impugned order at exhibit 5 is not an appealable order and no appeal lies against this order. Whether the appeal lies or not, I am not required to go into this because I am of the considered opinion that before passing the impugned order at exhibit 5 respondent No. 1 ought to have heard the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner he could have passed the order.
4. It may also be stated that in the ordinary circumstances this court would have upheld the preliminary objection regarding alternative remedy of appeal, but having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances. I do not see any reason to direct the petitioner to avail of that remedy particularly when the impugned order is passed in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice.
5. Having gone through the impugned order at exhibit 5 it is clear that the representation of the petitioner-company was rejected by respondent No. 1 on the ground that it would amount to renewal of deposit in contravention of provisions of Section 58 of the Act read with the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the Government did not find enough justification for acceding to the request made by the company in its letter which is referred to in the impugned order at exhibit 5. It is further stated in the impugned order that an application under Section 58A(8) of the Act does not lie in respect of deposits which have matured in view of the subsequent provision of Section 58A(8)(10) of the Act.
6. Thus, it is clear that on the aforesaid grounds the representation of the petitioner was rejected. It may be an administrative order, but the grounds on which respondent No. 1 rejected the representation of the petitioner-company left much to desire. If, an opportunity was given to the petitioner-company to explain or satisfy that it would not amount to renewal of deposits in contravention of the provisions of Section 58A of the Act and the application under Section 58A(8) of the Act lies then it would have satisfied respondent No. 1 that it would not amount to renewal of deposits in contravention of the provisions of Section 58A of the Act read with the rules framed thereunder and application under Section 58A(8) of the Act does not lie in respect of deposits which have matured in view of specific provision of Section 58A(8) and (10) of the Act. It is a different matter that after considering the objections raised by the company respondent No. 1 could have arrived at the conclusion which he has arrived at by the impugned order at exhibit 5. In that case, if such order was appealable then this court would not have interfered and relegated the petitioner to avail of the remedy of appeal.
7. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order at exhibit 5 is hereby quashed and set aside and respondent No. 1 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner-company in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within three months from today after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company.
8. At the first instance, the petitioner-company shall appear before respondent No. 1 through its representative on May 25, 2000. On that day, respondent No. 1 shall give a fixed date of hearing to the petitioner-company and
after hearing the petitioner it shall decide the representation in accordance
with law as directed above.