Borooah, J. - (1.) The first petitioner, viz the Pashok Tea Company Limited, owns the Pashok Tea Estate in the District of Darjeeling and the Loeksan Tea Estate in the District of Jalpaiguri. By two orders both dated October 11, 1976 and published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date, the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section of Section 16E of the Tea Act, 1953 (hereinafter the Act), authorised the Tea Trading Corporation of India Limited to take over the management of the two aforesaid gardens for a period of five years. These two orders, copies whereof arc annexure 'B' to the petition, are the subject matter of challenge in this Rule.
(2.) The main submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are (a) the reason for the take over is the purported creation of incumbrance's on the assets of the tea units, rite reason is not germane to the exercise of the power because the creation of incumbrance's has to be reckless, as on a plain reading of Section 16E (1)(a) of the Act it will be apparent that the word 'reckless' governs both investments and creation of incumbrance's; (b) There were no materials or evidence in the possession of the Central Government which could form the basis for the satisfaction for the take over and the materials disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition are extraneous and not germane for the exercise of the power under Section 16E (1)(a) of the Act and (c) violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not given an opportunity before the take over to explain that the financial and other conditions of the gardens were not such as to necessitate the passing of the impugned orders.
(3.) According to the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Respondents the word 'reckless' used in Section 16E(1)(a) of the Act governs only investments and as the petitioners had created incumbrance's which had affected the production of tea in the two gardens, the take over was justified. The further submission of the learned Advocate General was that by creating incumbrance's on the assets of the gardens the petitioner had brought about such a situation that workers were not being paid, Government dues were not being satisfied, outstanding Provident Fund payments were piling up and as a result a situation had arisen when there was every likelihood of the production of tea in the two gardens being completely stopped. Faced with such a situation the Central Government had no other option but to take recourse to the drastic action under Section 16E (1)(a) of the Act. As regards the opportunity to make a representation, it was contended that the petitioners had sufficient opportunities, which they had availed of, by making representations after the take over and the Central Government had considered and rejected such representations and had also approved of the take over. As such there could not have been any violation of the principles of natural justice.;