I.M.P.C.L. Karmachari Sang vs Union Of India And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3041 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.2833 of 2023

I.M.P.C.L. Karmachari Sang                          ....Petitioner

                             Versus

Union of India and Others                         ....Respondents

Present:-
            Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1
            and 3.

                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to

advertisement dated 01.09.2023 along with Global Invitation

of Expression of Interest of September, 2023, by which, the

respondent no.1, the Union of India, has notified that it

intends to dis-invest its entire stake in Indian Medicine and

Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited ("IMPEL") through

Strategic Disinvestment in Transfer of Management Control.

The petitioner has also sought related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the IMPEL is

a profit making undertaking. The petitioner is a trade union.

Its members were appointed on various posts from the

beginning of the year 1982 onwards in the IMPEL. They are

permanent workmen. According to the petitioner, 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.

4. According to the petitioner, the IMPEL does not

require any disinvestment on account of financial assets; the

proposed disinvestment is not in public interest; the decision

of disinvestment is against the very object and purpose of

establishing the IMPEL; the present policy of the IMPEL

favours the local level procurement of herbs from the local

farmers. The proposed decision is also against the policy of

the State of Uttarakhand, which attempts to promote the

industrial development in the State, particularly in the hill

areas. Various other grounds have been taken in the petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the IMPEL is established in a Reserve

Forest, for which, land was transferred in the year 1977 with

the stipulation that in case the land is not used by the IMPEL,

it shall be returned to the Forest Department. Reference has

been made to the communication dated 18.01.1997 of the

Deputy Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh to a Forest officer as

well as communication dated 13.12.1976. It is also argued

that, in fact, the public representative and one of the

Secretaries to the Government of India had also expressed the

reservation for the proposed disinvestment. Reference has

been made to the copy of the letter dated 05.10.2018 of

Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga

and Naturopathy.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also

invited the Court's attention to the disinvestment policy and

referred to the suo motu statement of the then Minister of

Disinvestment, made in both the Houses of the Parliament on

09.12.2002, in which the Hon'ble Minister has stated as

follows:-

"The main objective of disinvestment is to put national resources and assets to optimal use and in particular to unleash the productive potential inherent in our public sector enterprise. The policy of disinvestment specifically aims at:

• Modernization and upgradation of Public Sector Enterprises;

• Creation of new assets; • Generating of employment; and • Retiring of public debt.

Government would continue to ensure that disinvestment does not result in alienation of national assets, which, through the process of disinvestment, remain where they are. It will also ensure that disinvestment does not result in private monopolies."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the proposed decision is arbitrary; it is against pubic

policy; it is not in consonance with the disinvestment policy;

it is not for public domain; it is against the provisions of the

Constitution.

8. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, a jurisdiction much unlimited, but, also

controlled by certain guidelines. In pure policy matters,

generally, the Court refrains to make any interference. Every

activity of the executive may not be controlled by the

judiciary.

9. Disinvestment is a policy decision. The Court

posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as

to what is the interest of the petitioner? They are workers in

the IMPCL. Do they have any grievance with regard to their

service conditions? They may approach the appropriate

authority. Why are they concerned as to who is running the

show.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that once disinvestment is done, there is no surety of service

condition of the petitioner's association.

11. What is important to note in the instant case is

that way back in the year 2019, when the disinvestment of

IMPCL was proposed, WPPIL No. 213 of 2019, Neeraj Tiari Vs.

Union of India and Others, was filed in the Court ("the first

petition"). The first petition was decided on 11.12.2019, and

it was dismissed. The Court had then observed that "these

are all matters in which this Court lacks expertise, and

would ordinarily defer to the wisdom of the experts in the

field." Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment dated 11.12.2019

of the first petition are as follows:-

"7. In so far as the petitioner's contention that both the Government of Uttarakhand and the Ministry of Ayush have also opposed such a move for dis- investment, and that the subject company is a profit making unit, unlike other public sector undertakings which are running at a loss and are required to be supported by funds from the public ex-chequer, suffice it to observe that these are all matters for the Union of India to examine, and take a considered decision thereupon."

"8. While we see no reason to entertain this Writ Petition, allegedly filed in public interest, for these are all matters in which this Court lacks expertise, and would ordinarily defer to the wisdom of the experts in the field, suffice it to observe that we have no reason to doubt that, before a final decision is taken regarding dis-investment of its share capital in the subject unit, the Government of India would take into consideration the reservations expressed both by the Government of Uttarakhand and the Ministry of Ayush before taking a final decision as to whether or not it should off-load its share capital in the subject industrial unit."

12. This Court cannot presuppose that the concern,

that has been raised by the Court in its order dated

11.12.2019, in the first petition, has not been addressed to by

the Union of India. Even today, this Court lacks expertise to

evaluate the decision to disinvestment. Various factors are

involved in this process. Public interest definitely is at the

peak of it. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to

make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to

be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. s

13. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.10.2023 Ravi Bisht