SURENDRA KUMAR RAY Vs. CHAIRMAN STEEL AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ application thePrtitioners have prayed for a direction to the opp. parties 1 to 4to take over the D. A. V. Bolani School to the management ofthe SAIL in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of theBolani Ores Limited (Acquisition of Shares) and MiscellaneousProvisions Act, 1978 with effect from 1 1 1979 instead of1 1 1991.

(2.) THE brief facts, of the petitioners' case is that Bolani Ores Limited, a company registered, under the Companies Act, 1956 was established in the year 1957. The opp. party No. 1, Steel Authority of India' Ltd. was holding 50.5% of the share of the said Bolani Ores Limited, The Bolani Ores Limited in order to provide educational facilities for the children of its employees as an amenity, established an Upper Primary School at Bolani in the district of Keonjhar. .Since the company failed to manage the school properly and wanted upgradation of the school and to start an English Medium School, it decided to hand over the administration of the school and its upgradation to Dayananda Anglo Vedic College Trust, and Management Society (in short D. A. V. Society), A memorandum of agreement was execqted on 6 10 1972, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ application. While the D. V. V. Society was in charge of administration of the school in terms of the agreement (Annexure 1), the Bolani Ores Limited (Acquisition of Shares) and Miscellaneous ProvisionsAct, 1978 (hereinafter called 'the Acquisition Act') came into force. It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of the Act, all the assets and liabilities of the company vested with the Steel Authorities of India on 1 1 1979, the appointed date. But even though the school was one of the undertaking of the Bolani Ores Limited, the Steel Authorities refused to amalgamate the school. The petitioners as well as other employees of the school approached the authorities to take over the school on the ground that in view of the specific provision in the Acquisition Act, the school should have stood transferred to the management of the SAIL authorities with effect from 1 1 1979. The SAIL authorities ultimately took over the management with effect from 1 1 1991. But however, the petitioners claim that in view of section 6 of the Acquisition Act the school ought to have been taken over/stood transferred with effect from 1 1 1979.

(3.) IN view of the pleadings of the parties and their respective stand, the limited question that arises for consideration is as to whether the school, where the petitioners wereworking was being managed by the Bolani Ores Limited as on 1 1 1979, the appointed day on which the assets and liabilities of the company vested under section 6 of the Bolani Ores Limited (Acquisition of Shares) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1978 (hereinafter called 'the Acquisition Act') and if the company was managing the institution, then whether the school in question comes within the scope and ambit of sections 6 and 7 of the said Act.