Takeover under industrial recovery power requires current material, fair hearing, and proper sale process before possession is transferred.

Section 29 takeover power must be exercised on all relevant up-to-date materials, including later payments and subsidy adjustments; ignoring those developments vitiated the takeover decision. Because such action has grave civil consequences and no appellate review, a reasonable pre-decisional hearing is ordinarily required unless clearly excluded, and fairness demanded a fresh notice after the altered financial position. A hurried sale with scant publicity and inadequate time for competitive bidding was inconsistent with the duty to secure the best price and rendered the sale process defective.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Corporation's decision to take over the industrial concern under Section 29 was vitiated for not considering the payments made after the earlier demand and the subsidy adjustment; (ii) whether a pre-decisional notice and hearing were required before action under Section 29 and whether the absence of a further notice after the altered financial position violated natural justice; (iii) whether the hurried sale proceedings were valid.

Issue (i): Whether the Corporation's decision to take over the industrial concern under Section 29 was vitiated for not considering the payments made after the earlier demand and the subsidy adjustment.

Analysis: Section 29 confers an extraordinary power and its exercise must be based on a bona fide consideration of all relevant materials existing on the date of the decision, including up-to-date payments and adjustments. The earlier order of 6-1-1984 had not been acted upon, and before the later decision of 27-1-1984 the petitioner had made a cash payment and had also sought adjustment of the subsidy amount. Those relevant developments were not taken into account when the Corporation decided to take over possession.

Conclusion: The taking over order dated 27-1-1984 was vitiated and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): whether a pre-decisional notice and hearing were required before action under Section 29 and whether the absence of a further notice after the altered financial position violated natural justice.

Analysis: Section 29 does not expressly exclude the principles of natural justice. Since takeover under that provision entails grave civil consequences and there is no appeal or review, a reasonable opportunity of hearing must ordinarily be afforded before the power is exercised. Although earlier notices had been issued, the Corporation did not give a further opportunity after the subsequent payment and proposed adjustment, and the earlier order was not implemented. In the altered situation, fairness required a fresh notice and opportunity before the later takeover order.

Conclusion: The later takeover action violated the principles of natural justice and could not stand.

Issue (iii): whether the hurried sale proceedings were valid.

Analysis: The industry was taken over and put up for sale within a very short interval, with scant publicity and inadequate time for competitive bidding. Such haste was inconsistent with the duty to secure the best possible price and indicated that the assets were being sold without proper market exposure.

Conclusion: The sale proceedings were vitiated and the possession delivered to the auction purchaser was unauthorised.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the takeover and all subsequent sale-related actions were invalidated, and the petitioner was held entitled to restoration of possession on compliance with the directed deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to take over an industrial concern for default must be exercised on consideration of all relevant up-to-date materials, and where the action entails grave civil consequences without appellate review, a reasonable pre-decisional opportunity of hearing is ordinarily required unless clearly excluded by the statute or by compelling necessity.

---