Court quashes order, directs review within three months, emphasizes fair hearing

The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's representation, and directed the respondent to review it within three months, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair hearing to the petitioner in accordance with due process.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order rejecting exemption from provisions of rule 3(i)(a) of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 based on violation of natural justice. Preliminary objection on maintainability of writ petition due to alternative statutory remedy of appeal. Rejection of representation based on contravention of Companies Act, 1956 and Rules framed thereunder without hearing petitioner-company.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 17-8-1995, rejecting their representation seeking exemption from rule 3(i)(a) of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The court found a violation of the principle of natural justice as the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing for the availment of the statutory remedy of appeal. However, the court ruled that the impugned order was not appealable and emphasized the importance of hearing the petitioner before passing such orders.

The impugned order rejected the petitioner's representation on the grounds of contravention of section 58 of the Companies Act, 1956, and related Rules, stating it would amount to renewal of deposits. The court noted that the rejection lacked sufficient justification and highlighted the importance of giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain and satisfy the concerns raised. The court directed the respondent to reconsider the representation in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and decision-making process.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondent to review the representation within three months, after providing a hearing to the petitioner. The court stressed the significance of following due process and giving the petitioner a chance to address the issues raised before making a decision.

---