SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner company has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 17. 8. 95 (Ex. 5) passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby, the representation of the petitioner company for seeking exemption from provisions of Rule 3 (i) (a) of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 for keeping deposits beyond the period of maturity and upto 8 years with effect from 1. 4. 1998 has been rejected.
(2.) ON several grounds raised in this petition the impugned order at Ex. 5 has been challenged by the petitioner, but I am not required to go into all because in my opinion on first ground namely regarding violation of principle of natural justice in the sense that without hearing the petitioner company the impugned order at Ex. 5 is passed, this petition is required to be allowed. 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 Ex. 5 the petitioner company should avail of that remedy of appeal before the company board. This was seriously objected by the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the impugned order at Ex. 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 impugned order at Ex. 5 the respondent no. 1 ought to have heard the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner he could have passed the order. 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 that remedy particularly when the impugned order is passed in flagrant violation of principle of natural justice. Having gone through the impugned order at Ex. 5 it is clear that the representation of the petitioner company was rejected by the respondent no. 1 on the ground that it would amount to renewal of deposit in contravention of provisions of Sec. 58 of the Act read with the Rules framed thereunder, therefore, Govt. 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 Ex. 5. It is further stated in the impugned order that application u/sec. 58 (A) (8) of the Act does not lie in respect of deposits which have matured in view of the subsequent provision of Sec. 58 (A) (8) (10) of the Act. Thus, it is clear that on aforesaid grounds the representation of the petitioner was rejected. It may be an administrative order, but the grounds on which the respondent no. 1 rejected the representation of the petitioner company left us 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 Sec. 58 (A) of the Act and the application u/s. 58 (A) (8) of the Act lies then it would have satisfy the respondent no. 1 that it would not amount to renewal of deposits in contravention of provision of Sec. 58 (A) of the Act read with Rules framed thereunder and application u/s. 58 (A) (8) of the Act does lie in respect of deposits which have matured in view of specific provision of Sec. 58 (A) (8) and (10) of the Act. It is a different matter that after considering the objections raised by the company the respondent No. 1 could have arrived at the conclusion which he has arrived at by the impugned order at Ex. 5. In that case, if such order was appealable then this Court would not have interfered and relegated the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order at Ex. 5 is hereby quashed and set aside and the 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. At first instance, the petitioner company shall appear before the respondent no. 1 through its representative on 25. 5. 2000. On that day, the respondent no. 1 shall give a fix date of hearing to the petitioner company and after hearing the petitioner it shall decide the representation in accordance with law as directed above. .;