Mandatory pre-acquisition notice must disclose specific statutory grounds and particulars, or the acquisition order will fail.

The SC held that where acquisition power under the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 depended on the Government being satisfied about specified statutory grounds, the pre-decisional notice had to disclose the precise clause invoked and the supporting particulars. A general notice referring only to Section 3(1), closure of the factory, and possible unemployment was insufficient, especially when issued commonly for multiple factories without individual facts. Because the mandatory notice requirement was not met, the jurisdictional basis for transfer and vesting failed and the acquisition order was quashed, while the Government remained free to proceed afresh on proper material and compliant notices.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 complied with the mandatory requirement of disclosing the specific grounds for proposed acquisition and whether the consequent order of transfer and vesting was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered the Government to declare a cashew factory transferred and vested in the Government only when it was satisfied that one of the specified conditions existed. The proviso to Section 3(1) made prior notice and disclosure of the grounds mandatory, so that the occupier or owner could meaningfully object. The notice in question merely referred to Section 3(1) generally and stated that the factory was closed and might lead to large-scale unemployment, without specifying which clause was invoked or furnishing particulars showing actual large-scale unemployment in each factory. A common notice for multiple factories, without individual particulars, did not satisfy the statutory requirement. Since the existence of the jurisdictional facts was open to judicial review, the deficient notice could not sustain the acquisition order.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid and the order dated 6-7-1988 was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition action failed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-decisional procedure, but the Government was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law on proper material and by issuing compliant notices.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute conditions exercise of acquisition power on the authority's satisfaction about specified grounds and requires prior notice of those grounds, the notice must disclose the precise statutory basis and supporting particulars; failure to do so vitiates the ensuing order.

---