A single-judge bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of I.M.P.C.L. Karmachari Sang Vs Union of India and Others held that every activity of the executive may not be controlled by the judiciary.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Indian Medicine and Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (“IMPCL”) is a profit-making undertaking and the Petitioner is a trade union. It was alleged by the Petitioners that the decision of the disinvestment and advertisement for expression of interest is contrary to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, as the expression of interest, which are the terms and conditions of the disinvestment, does not provide any age of superannuation of the employees/petitioner members. It was furthermore alleged that the disinvestment is against the public interest and doesn’t comply with the very object and purpose of establishing the IMPEL.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners contended that the IMPEL is situated within a Reserve Forest, to which land was granted in 1977 on the condition that it be returned to the Forest Department if the IMPEL is not able to use it. Furthermore, the counsel draws the attention of the court to the disinvestment policy and the suo moto statement of the minister of disinvestment. At last, it was contended that in accordance with the disinvestment policy, the proposed decision is inconsistent with public policy and is arbitrary.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants writ petitions, which have nearly limitless authority but are subject to specific restrictions. Generally speaking, the Court does not get involved in matters pertaining only to policy. The judiciary may not have authority over all aspects of the executive's operations.
The court furthermore relied upon the judgment titled Neeraj Tiari Vs. Union of India and Others in which it was held that
“These are all matters in which this Court lacks expertise, and 5 would ordinarily defer to the wisdom of the experts in the field.”
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the court lacks the expertise to evaluate the decision of disinvestment and there is no reason to interfere.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed in liminie.
Case Title: I.M.P.C.L. Karmachari Sang Vs Union of India and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani
Case No.: Writ Petition (M/S) No.2833 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
