Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd Vs.
Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors [1985] INSC 28 (20 February 1985)
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI
(J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION: 1985 AIR 736 1985 SCR (2) 937 1985
SCC (2) 152 1985 SCALE (1)394
ACT:
Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 Rule
4- Whether compliance of Rule 4 is mandatory before issuing the Notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of acquisition of
land for the propose of a company-Practice and Procedure-Where several
contentions factual and legal are urged in a case and where there is a scope of
an appeal From the decision of the Court, High Courts and Courts below should
not merely rest its decision on one single point.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant made an application on the 15th
November, 1978 under chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the
acquisition of the lands earlier purchased by Respondent No. 1 herein. The
Government issued on the 29th October, 1980 a notification for acquisition of
the said land under section 4 of the Act which was published in the Government
Gazette dated 30th October, 1980. Respondent No. 1 objected to the said
notification. Subsequently the Government bled an enquiry under section SA of
the Act and, after submitting a report in March 1981, on or about 10th April
1981, the Deputy Collector issued notice to Respondent No. I that enquiry under
rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963 would be held on the 15th
April, 1981 to which the latter filed his objections on merit by his letter
dated 4th May, 1981. On 26th October, 1983, agreement was executed between the
government and the acquiring company. A notification under section 6 that the
land in question was needed for the purpose of development of tourism, was
published in the Government Gazette dated 27th October 1983.
Respondent No. 1, thereupon, filed a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the said notifications under
sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court of Bombay (Goa
Bench) quashed the said notifications on the first ground alone namely, the
notifications were bad for prior non-compliance with Rule 4 of the Land
Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963, and noted that it was not necessary to deal
with other grounds of challenge. Hence the appeal by special leave- 938
Allowing the appeal and remitting the case back, the Court ^
HELD: 1. ON a correct interpretation of the
scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not necessary that enquiry under rule
4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 must in all cases precede
issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act. In an appropriate cash
if it is possible, enquiry under rule 4(1) may be held before the issuance of
the notification under section 4. But it is not a mandatory requirement that it
must precede the issuance of the notification under the Act. [949B-C] RAJA Ram
Jaiswal v. Collector, Allahabad & Another, (1980) 2 ILR Allahabad 269;
conclusion approved.
Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay (now
Maharashtra), AIR 1960 SC 1203 at 1206, followed.
Abdul Husein Tayabali & Ors. v. State of
Gujrat l Ors., [1968] I SCR 597. explained and distinguished.
2.1. A consepectus of the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act as well as Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963
indicate that there are two purposes of acquisition of land-one being for the
public purpose and other for the purpose of a company, In case of acquisition
for company, the appropriate Government has to satisfy itself that such
acquisition is needed and would be useful also for public need. [943E-F]
2.2 Land Acquisition proceedings begin with
the publication of the preliminary notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. When the acquisition is for a company the Purpose has to
be investigated under section SA (by hearing objections and disposing them) or
under section 40 necessarily after the notification under section 4 of the Act.
Under section 6 if the Government is satisfied after considering the report, if
any, made under section 5A that any particular land was needed for public
purposes or for a company a declaration shall be made to that effect subject to
certain conditions stipulated therein. Sub-rule 4 of Rule 4 of the Land
Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963 provides that no declaration shall be made
by the Appropriate Government under section 6 of the Act unless (i) the
appropriate government had consulted the committee and had considered the
report submitted under the said rule and the report if any, submitted under
section SA of the Act and (ii) further any agreement under section 41 of the
Act executed by the Company.
To complete the acquisition proceedings
notification under section 6 of the Act is required. Section 6 of the Act enjoins
that the government has to be satisfied that the land is needed for public
purpose or for a company and after declaration is made the acquisition is
complete after the award is made and possession of the land is taken when the
land vests under section 16 in the government free from encumbrances. Section 4
939 does not require as such this satisfaction of the government. The
government might initiate acquisition proceedings "if it appears" to
the government that land is needed either for public purpose or for a company.
That might appear to the government by enquiry aliunde or on a petition or
application made by any company. Whether the need is proper or genuine that can
be found by the government subsequently after notice under section 4 of the Act.
An enquiry under rule 4 might be made before issuance of the notification under
section 4 of the Act but it is not a sine qua non for the issuance of the
notification under section 4 to have an enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules. The
scheme and the language of the Act and the Rules do not indicate that.
Therefore, section 4 as such does not require government to be satisfied, it is
sufficient if it appears to the government that land is needed either for
public purpose or for a complain. It may so appear to the Government either by
independent inquiry or from reports and information received by the government
or even from an application by the company concerned. [943H; 944A-F]
2.3 It is undoubtedly true that a
notification under section 4 can be issued after enquiry under rule 4. But
under the scheme of the Act, the converse is not correct, i.e., the enquiry
under rule 4 must always precede notification under section 4 of the Act,
though enquiry under rule 4(1) must precede action under section 6 of the Act. Further
certain matters which are required to be done under rule 4 cannot be done
before because the officer or the person authorised by him would have no
authority, unless notification under section 4 is issued. [945G-H; 946A] Rule
4(4) does not prohibit or forbid issuance of notification under section 4 of
the Act unless rule 4(1) has been compiled with. If it is now insisted that
there should be no issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act before
enquiry under rule 4 then this sub-rule has to be re- written by stating that
no notification under section 4 and no declaration under section 6 issued or
made as the case may be unless the requirements mentioned in clauses (i) and
(ii) of sub-rule (4) of rule 4 have been complied with. On the contrary, it
will be contrary to the scheme and purpose of the acquisition proceedings
because the compensation for the acquisition has to be fixed under section 23
of the Act keeping the market rate as or the date of F the issuance of the
notification under section 4 in view. If it be that the enquiry as contemplated
by rule 4 should also precede issuance of notice under section 4 of the Act
then that may upset the fixation of the market value and escalation of price
with the passage of time between publication of the notification under sections
4 and 6 would make acquisition difficult. [945A.D]
3. In a matter of this nature where several
Contentions factual and legal are urged and when there is scope of an appeal
from the decisions Of the Court, it is desirable as was observed by the Privy
Council long time ago to avoid delay and protraction of litigation that the
court should, when dealing with any matter dispose of all the points and not
merely rest its decision on one single point.
[950A-B] 940
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 504 Of 1985 From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Bombay, Panaji
Bench (Goa) dated the 26th June, 1984, in writ Petition No, 8 of 1984.
B. Zaiwala, Anil B. Divan, Usgaonkar,
Ravinder Narain, and Aditia Narayan, for the Appellant.
S.C. Desai, M.M Abdul Khader, Naunit Lal,
Kailash Vasdev, Mrs. Vinod Arya, and Miss A Subhashini for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted. This appeal filed by M/s Fomento
Resorts and Hotels Limited raises the short question as to whether compliance
with rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called
the Rules) is necessary before issuing notifications under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
It appears that the land in question was
purchased by Gustavo Ranato da Cruz Pinto hereinafter referred to as the land
owner and the original respondent No. 1 on 10th of March, 1978. The original
respondent No. 2 and the appellant herein on the 15th November, 1978 made an
application under Chapter 7 of the Act for the acquisition of the said
properties. The government issued on the 29th October, 1980 notification in
respect of the land in question under section 4 of the Act which was published
in the Government Gazette dated 30th October, 1980. The land owner being
respondent No. 1 to this appeal objected to the said notification under section
4. Subsequently government held enquiry under section 5A of the Act and the
Deputy Collector submitted the report to the Government in March, 1981. On or
about 10th April, 1981 the Deputy Collector issued notice to respondent No. 1
that enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules would be held on 15th April, 1981. The
respondent No. I filed his objections on merit by the letter dated 4th May,
1981. On 26th October, 1983, agreement was executed between the government and
the acquiring company that the land in question was needed for the purpose of
development of tourism. the government issued notification under section 6 of
the Act which was published in the government Gazette dated 27th October, 1983.
941 The petition under Article 226 out of
which this appeal arises was filed in the Bombay High Court by respondent No. I
challenging the said notifications under sections a and 6 of the Act. The High
Court of Bombay (Goa Bench) quashed the said notification under sections 4 and
6 of the Act only on the ground that enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules was not
held prior to the notification under section 4 of the Act. The propriety 1 and
validity of the said decision of the High Court are under challenge in this
appeal. The High Court, however, noted that the impugned notification had been
challenged on several other grounds but in the view it had taken on the first
ground namely that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act being
bad for prior non-compliance with rule 4 of the Rules, the High Court felt that
it was not necessary to deal with other grounds. The petition succeeded before
the High Court and the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act were
quashed. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court.
Under the scheme of the Act, it is necessary
for the purpose of acquisition of land first to issue a notification under
section 4 of the Act, whenever it appears to the appropriate government that
land in any locality is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose.
The purpose and object of the notification
under section 4 of the Act have been explained by this Court in the case of
Babu Barkya Thakur vs. State of ,Bombay (now Maharastra) and others thus:
"The purpose of the notification under
section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to finding out
after necessary survey and taking of levels, and, if necessary, digging or
boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which
it was sought to be acquired. It is only under S. 6 that a firm declaration has
to be made by Government that land with proper description and area so as to be
identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a Company. What was a mere
proposal under S. 4 becomes the subject matter of a definite proceedings for
acquisition under the Act. Hence, it is not correct to say that any defect in
the notification under S. 4 (1) AIR 1960 S. C. 1203 at 1208.
942 is fatal to the validity of the
proceedings, particularly when the acquisition is for a Company and the purpose
has to be investigated under S. 5A or S. 40 necessarily after the notification
under S.4 of the Act." This Court emphasised that when the acquisition is
for a Company the purpose has to be investigated under section .
A or section 40 necessarily after the
notification under section 4 of the Act. The land acquisition proceedings begin
with the publication of the preliminary notification.
Section 5A enjoins hearing of the objections
and disposal of objections. Sections 6 of the Act provides that if the
government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under
section 5A, that any particular land was needed for public purpose, or for a
Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect subject to certain
conditions mentioned in the various sub-sections of section 6 of the Act. After
declaration under section 6, section 7 enjoins the Collector to take order for
acquisition of land. Various steps for the actual acquisition are enumerated in
subsequent section of the Act which need not be set out in detail. Section 16
empowers taking of the possession after an award is made under section 11 and
thereafter the land shall vest in the government free from all encumbrances.
It is important to note that section 23 of
the Act deals with the matters to be considered in determining compensation for
acquisition of land and ht enjoins that the market value should be determined
as on the date of the publication of the notification under section 4. In other
words section 23 pegs the market value of the land as on the date of the
notification under section 4 as one of the factors to be taken into
consideration in determining the compensation to be paid. Part VII of the Act
deals with acquisition of land for companies. Section 41 of the Act provides
that if the appropriate government is satisfied after considering the report, if
any, of the Collector under section 5A, or on the report of the officer making
an enquiry under section 40 of certain matters, the details of which are not
necessary for the purpose of appeal to be set out, it shall require the Company
to enter into an agreement with the appropriate government providing for the
satisfaction of the appropriate government for certain matters enumerated in
different sub-sections of section 40 The said provisions need not be set out in
detail.
Essentially the satisfaction and agreement
with the company arc to ensure that the 943 land in question will be put to
such use which will be useful to the A public.
Rule 3 of the Rules provides for the
constitution of the Land Acquisition Committee. Rule 4 is headed
"Appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters
before initiating proceedings" and sub-rule (l) of rule 4 lays down
certain matters about which the appropriate government has to be satisfied when
the acquisition is for the Company. Sub-rule (4) of rule 4 of the Rules
provides that no declaration shall be made by the appropriate government under
section 6 of the Act unless (i) the appropriate government had consulted the
committee and had considered the report submitted under the said rule and the
report, if any, submitted under section SA of the Act and (ii) further any
agreement under section 41 of the Act executed by the Company. Rule S of Rules
deals with the matters which are to be provided for in the agreement under
section 41 of the Act. Rule 6 similarly deals with the additional matters which
might be provided in the agreement under section 41 of the Act. Rule 7 provides
for submission of periodical reports. Rule 8 of the Rules deals with the
conditions under which sanction is to be given for transfer of land. Rule g
deals with special provisions in relation to certain Companies. It is not
necessary to discuss these rules in detail for the present purpose.
A conspectus of the provisions of the Act as
well as the Rules indicate that there are two purposes of acquisition of
land-one being for the public purpose and the other for the purpose of a
Company. In case of acquisition for Company, the appropriate government has to
satisfy itself that such acquisition is needed and would be useful also for public
need. Rule 4 of the Rules provides for satisfaction of the appropriate
government with regard to various matters before acquisition.
The learned judges of the Bombay High Court
were of the view that the enquiry under rule 4 was necessary for the initiation
of the acquisition proceedings to be satisfied that acquisition was necessary
for the Company.
We are unable to accept this conclusion for
the following reasons:
(i) To complete the acquisition proceedings,
notification under 944 section 6 of the Act is required. Section 6 of the Act
enjoins that the government has to be satisfied that the land is needed for
public purpose or for a Company and after declaration is made the acquisition
is complete after the award is made and possession of the land is taken the
land vests under section 16 in the government free from encumbrances. Section 4
does not require as such this satisfaction of the government. The government
might initiate acquisition proceedings "if it appears" to the
government that land is needed either for public purpose or for a Company. That
might appear to the government by enquiry aliunde or on a petition or
application made by any Company. Whether the need is proper or genuine that can
be found by the government subsequently after notice under section 4 of the
Act. An enquiry under rule 4 might be made before issuance of the notification
under section 4 of the Act but it is not a sine qua non for the issuance of the
notification under section 4 to have an enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules. The
scheme and the language of the Act and the Rules do not indicate that. As noted
before, section 4 does not require government to be satisfied, it is sufficient
if it appears to the government that land is needed either for public purpose
or for a Company. It may so appear to the government either by independent
enquiry or from reports and information received by the government or even from
an application by the company concerned.
Section 6 undoubtedly requires satisfaction
of the government and enquiry contemplated under rule 4 must precede
publication of the notification under section 6 of the Act. So also there must
be before section 6 notification an enquiry under section 5A. The p significant
pointer to the scheme is provided in sub-rule (4) 'of rule 4, the material
portion of which reads as follows:- "(4) No declaration shall be made by
the appropriate Government under section 6 of the Act unless- (i) the
appropriate Government has consulted the Committee and has considered the
report submitted under this rule and the report, if any, submitted under
section 5A of the Act; and (ii) the agreement under section 41 of the Act has
been executed by the Company." 945 The said sub-rule significantly does
not prohibit or forbid A issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act
unless rule 4 (l) has been complied with. If it is now insisted that there
should be no issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act before enquiry
under rule 4 then this sub-rule has to be re-written by stating that no notification
under section 4 and no declaration under section 6 issued or made as the case
may be unless the requirements mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule
(4) of lure 4 have been complied with. We find no warrant to do that. On the
contrary, it will be contrary to the scheme and purpose of the acquisition
proceedings because the compensation for the acquisition has to be fixed under
section 23 of the Act keeping the market rate as on the date of the issuance of
the notification under section 4 in view.
If it be that the enquiry as contemplated by
rule 4 should also precede issuance of notice under section 4 of the Act then
that may upset the fixation of the market value and escalation of price with
the passage of time between publication of the notifications under sections 4
and 6 would make acquisition difficult.
An argument was sought to be built on the
basis of the heading of rule 4 which stipulates that "Appropriate
Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters before initiating
acquisition proceedings". It is true that before the initiation of the
acquisition proceedings, government had to be satisfied of certain matters
mentioned in the various sub-rules of rule 4 as well as various provisions of
the Act. Though preliminary steps for initiation of acquisition proceedings are
necessary and those can only be taken by the authority of the notification
under section 4 as mentioned in the decision of Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of
Bombay (now Maharashtra) and Others, (supra) the initiation of the acquisition
proceedings for all practical purposes begins after section 6 notification
Satisfaction is necessary for proceeding for acquisition under section 6 of the
Act but section 4 unlike section 6 does not require for the issuance of the notice
to be satisfied but it might act only "when it appears" to it that
the land is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose.
Reading the Act and the Rules and keeping in
view the scheme of the Act, it is apparent, in our opinion, that before the
issuance of section 4 notification, there is no requirement as such of
compliance with the procedure contemplated by rule 4 of the Rules. We are
therefore unable to subscribe to the view that 946 enquiry by rule 4 must
precede the issuance of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act.
Furthermore as indicated before certain matters which are required to be done
under rule 4 can not be done because the officer or the person authorised by
him would have no authority unless notification under section 4 is issued.
Reliance was placed before the Bombay High
Court and before us in support of the judgment of the High Court on a decision
of this Court in the case of Abdul Husein Tayabali and Ors. v. State of Gujarat
and Ors. (1). There the contention before the Court was that Master was only a
Special Land Acquisition Officer and not the Collector within the meaning of
rule 4. Furthermore, it was urged, in any event, the notification in question
did not 'specially' appoint him but was a general notification authorising all
the Special Land Acquisition Officers in the State appointed not only before
the date of section 4 notification but also those who would be appointed in
future It was further contended that notification did not "appoint"
but simply authorised him to perform the functions of the Collector, the State
Government had not given any directions to him to make a report as required by
rule 4; therefore the enquiry held by him under that rule and the report made
by him was invalid and consequently no notification either under section 4 or
section 6 could be validly issued. It was urged, therefore, the section 6
notification was issued without complying with Part VII of the Act and without
the valid consent of the State Government as required under section 39(iii),
that the acquisition was made malafide and without application of mind to the
relevant facts and the acquisition did not involve any public purpose and the
State government was bound to give an opportunity Of being heard to the
appellants before taking a decision under section 5A particularly when the
report made by Master was against the acquisition.
In this connection our attention was drawn to
section 39 of the Act which provides that provisions of sections 6 to 37 (both
inclusive) shall not be put into force in order to acquire land for any Company
unless with the previous consent of the appropriate Government nor unless the
Company shall have executed the agreement therein after mentioned.
This section, in our opinion, has no
relevance for determining whether to be a proper acquisition, enquiry
contemplat- (1) [1968] 1 SCR 597.
947 ed under rule 4 must precede issuance of
the notification under section 4 of the Act. In the decision of this Court
referred to hereinbefore, this question did not really fall for consideration
because there was compliance with rule 4 before issuance of the notification
and the infirmities of the enquiry under rule 4 urged on behalf of the
appellants were not established.
It was urged before this Court that the enquiry
under rule 4 was a quasi-judicial enquiry and therefore it was incumbent on
Master to give an opportunity to the appellants to be heard. This Court was of
the view that the rule provide that an officer conducting the enquiry has to
hear the Company before making his report. Whether he was also to hear the
owners of the land or not did not fall for decision in those appeals as the
officer had in fact given such an Opportunity to the appellants by serving them
with notices and recorded the statement of such of them who cared to appear
before him. It was then contended that the enquiry under rule 4 had to beheld
after the notification under section 4 was issued and not before and therefore
the enquiry held by Master was not valid. This Court observed at page 604 of
the report "We do not find anything in rule or in any other rule to
warrant such a proposition. The enquiry, the report to be made consequent upon
such enquiry, obtaining the opinion of the Land Acquisition Committee, all
these intended to enable the Government to come to a tentative conclusion that
the lands in question were or were likely to be needed for a public purpose and
to issue thereafter section 4 notification In our opinion no objection to the
appointment of Master to perform the functions of the Collector under section
3(c) or to his competence to make the enquiry and the report under rule 4 or
their legality can be validly made." In our opinion when this Court
observed that the report of the enquiry under rule 4 was a factor to be taken
into consideration and "to issue thereafter section 4 notification"
was by general observation. It is undoubtedly true that a notification under
section 4 can be issued after enquiry under rule 4. But under the scheme of the
Act, the converse is not correct i.e. the enquiry under rule 4 must always
precede notification under section 4 of the Act. In that decision this Court
analysed the importance of section SA and it is after considering the report
under rule 4 and report under section SA that notification under section 6 will
be issued. It is undoubtedly true that 948 enquiry under rule 4(1) must precede
action under section but we do not find reading the said decision of this Court
in the context of the facts and circumstances and the contentions urged in that
case that this Court laid down any proposition that enquiry under rule 4(1)
must precede issuance of notification under section 4. Indeed as we have
mentioned before, notification under section 4 would facilitate the matters to
be inquired under rule 4(1).
Reliance was also placed on certain
observations in the case of General Govt. Servants Co-operative Housing Society
Ltd" Agra v. Wahab Uddin & Ors. Etc. Etc. 1 There the scheme of the
Act was analysed and what were matters to be required under rule 4 of the Rules
were mentioned. This Court observed at pages 53-54 of the report as follows:
"No declaration shall be made by the
appropriate Government under section 6 of the Act unless the Committee has been
consulted by the Government and has considered the report submitted by the
Collector under section SA of the Act. In addition, under clause (ii) of
sub-rule (4) of rule , the Company has to execute an agreement under section 41
of the Act. The above consideration shows that rule 4 is mandatory; its
compliance is no idle formality, unless the directions enjoined by rule 4 are
complied with the notifications under section 6 will be invalid. A
consideration of rule 4 also shows that its compliance precedes the
notification under section 4 as well as compliance of section 6 of the
Act." It may be borne in mind in that decision the notification under
section 6 was quashed but notification under Section 4 was not quashed though
observations were made about the purpose and the role of compliance with rule
4. Reliance was placed on the following
observations at page 54 of the report:
"A consideration of rule 4 also shows
that its compliance precedes the notification under section 4 as well as
compliance of section 6 of the Act." It appears to us that the reference
to rule 4 in the context in which it was made was inadvertent. What perhaps the
Court want- (1) [1981] 3 S.C.R. 46.
949 ed to convey was the need of compliance
of entering into agreement A under section 41 before the issuance of
notification under section 6 of the Act. Otherwise it appears that there was no
enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules before issuance of the notification under
section 4 yet the notification under section 4 was not quashed. The observation
then in any event is obiter.
On the scheme of the Act, we are of the
opinion that on a correct interpretation, it is not necessary that enquiry
under rule 4 must in all cases precede issuance of the notification under
section 4 of the Act. In an appropriate case if it is possible, enquiry under
rule 4(1) may be held before the issuance of the notification under section 4.
But it is not a mandatory requirement that it must precede before the issuance
of the notification under section 4.
Our attention was drawn to a Bench decision
of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Raja Ram Jaiswal v. Collector,
Allahabad & Another (1), where it was held that it would not be right to
say that a case where a company makes an application for acquisition of land to
the Collector it was obligatory that the provisions of rule 4(1) must be
complied with before the Collector could issue a notification under section
x(1) of the Act. With this conclusion we are in agreement, though factually the
case was slightly different in the sense that there the Collector was
authorised to make a notification under section 4(1) of the Act and not the
State Government as in this case.
Therefore, though there may be in certain
cases compliance with rule 4(1) of the Rules it was not mandatory that before
issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Act there should be an
enquiry in compliance with rule 4(1).
In the premises in so far as the Bombay High
Court held that non-compliance with rule 4 before the issuance of notification
under section 4(1) of the Act is bad is set aside.
As mentioned hereinbefore, since the issuance
of the notifications was challenged on several other grounds and the High Court
had not decided those grounds, we remit the matter back to the High Court to
decide those grounds- We request the High Court to dispose of those grounds as
early as possible.
(1) [1980] 2 ILR Allahabad 269.
950 In a matter of this nature there several
contentions factual and legal are urged and when there is scope of an appeal
from the decision of the Court, it is desirable as was observed by the Privy
Council long time ago to avoid delay and protraction of litigation that the
court should, when dealing with any matter dispose of all the points and not
merely rest its decision on one single point.
In the facts and circumstances of the case,
as the matter is being remitted back to the High Court, costs of this appeal
will abide by the result of the High Court decision.
Back
