AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These are the appeals preferred against a Judgment dated November 21, 2017 read with an order dated November 27, 2017 passed in connection with W. P. No. 9075 (W) of 2017 and W. P. No. 4941 (W) of 2017 respectively.
Out of aforesaid two writ applications the subject-matter of challenge in the writ application bearing W. P. No. 9075 (W) of 2017 was the validity of the show cause notices dated November 20, 2015, February 22, 2016 and purported letter dated March 18, 2016.
During the pendency of the above writ applications the respondent- Company proceeded against the petitioner-Company on the basis of the aforesaid show cause notices on the strength of an order dated April 6, 2016. Liberty was granted to the respondent-Corporation to proceed against the petitioner- Company upon granting it an opportunity to place its version in its defence. Liberty was further granted to the respondent-Corporation to pass a final order but it was restrained from giving effect to such final order without obtaining leave from the Court. The proceeding came to an end during the pendency of the above writ application and the final order dated February 9, 2017 was passed. The subject-matter of challenge in the second writ application bearing W. P. No. 4941 (W) of 2017 was the final order which had been passed against the petitioner-Company by the respondent-Corporation.
Both the aforesaid writ applications were taken up for final hearing by the learned Single Judge and those writ applications were disposed of by a common order dated November 21, 2017. The above order is the subject-matter of challenge in these appeals.
It is submitted by Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Company that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the grounds set forth in the first writ application bearing 9075 (W) of 2017 so far as the validity of notices impugned to the above writ application was concerned.
It is further clarified by Mr. Mitra that the subject-matter of challenge in the first writ application was the jurisdiction of the respondent authority to issue the show cause impugned to the first writ application and those were not dealt with by the learned Single Judge.
It is the contention of Mr. Mitra that so far as the second writ application is concerned he has no grievance with regard to the order impugned to these appeals because the final order passed in the proceeding was quashed granting liberty to the respondent-Corporation to proceed on the basis of the show cause notices de novo with the observations made therein. According to him, the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the aforesaid final order was not backed by reasons. He has no grievance with regard to the same.
It is submitted by Mr. Jayanta Mitra, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that there is no doubt or dispute with regard to the challenge thrown in respect of the final order passed against the appellant-Company in the second writ application bearing W. P. No. 4941 (W) of 2017 that the same was a non-speaking order.
However, it is the contention of Mr. Mitra that so far as the question of jurisdiction of the respondent-Corporation to issue the show cause notices were concerned the challenge cannot be sustained in law.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that while passing the order impugned to these appeals that the contention of the appellants in the first writ application bearing W. P. No. 9075 (W) of 2017 were not dealt with. So far as the second writ petition was concerned, the learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that the final order was passed without assigning any reason therein and, therefore, quashed and set aside the above order.
In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances the operation of the order impugned to these appeals is stayed with the direction upon the learned Single Judge to dispose of the first writ application bearing W. P. 9075 (W) of 2017 afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove. In the event the first writ application succeeds then the second writ application and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in respect of the above writ application will become infructuous though we find no error or irregularity in the same. However, in the event the first writ application fails the respondent-Corporation shall proceed on the basis of the show cause notices in terms of the order impugned to these appeals.
As a consequence the final order dated February 9, 2007 passed by the respondent-Corporation in connection with the proceeding shall remain stayed till the disposal of the first writ application in terms of the aforesaid directions.
Since nothing further remains in the appeals to be decided the appeals are treated as on day''s list and the appeals as also these applications are disposed of accordingly.
There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on the usual undertakings.