Quasi-judicial takeover orders remain valid when a departmental hearing precedes ministerial decision and the Minister independently applies mind.

A Government takeover made under a quasi-judicial power was upheld where the hearing was conducted by a competent departmental officer and the Minister independently considered the record before deciding; personal hearing by the Minister was not required. The takeover was also not invalid for want of reasons because a later speaking order set out the basis of the decision and matched the departmental record. No fresh prior hearing was required before extending the takeover period, since the owner had already been heard on the original order and the statutory scheme provided a remedy by seeking cancellation of the takeover. The challenge therefore failed on all substantive grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of take over was invalid because the hearing was given by a departmental officer and not by the Minister who passed the final order; (ii) whether the take over was invalid for want of a reasoned order; (iii) whether prior hearing was necessary before extending the period of take over.

Issue (i): Whether the order of take over was invalid because the hearing was given by a departmental officer and not by the Minister who passed the final order.

Analysis: A quasi-judicial power exercised by Government or a Minister may be processed through departmental officers. There is no breach of natural justice if the hearing or inquiry is conducted by a competent official and the final decision is taken by the Minister after considering the record, the report, and the relevant material, provided the decision is his own and he applies his mind to the matter. The requirement is of an informed and fair decision, not that the Minister must personally conduct the oral hearing in every case.

Conclusion: The order was not invalid on the ground that the Minister did not personally hear the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the take over was invalid for want of a reasoned order.

Analysis: Assuming that a reasoned order was necessary after the hearing, the defect did not survive once the Government passed and communicated a reasoned order. The reasons embodied in the later order were the same as those reflected in the departmental record and formed the basis of the Minister's decision. The challenge therefore failed once the speaking order was issued.

Conclusion: The take over was not invalid for want of reasons.

Issue (iii): Whether prior hearing was necessary before extending the period of take over.

Analysis: The owner had already been heard at the stage of the original take over order. In addition, the statutory scheme allowed the owner to seek cancellation of the take over. In that setting, no implied duty arose to give another prior hearing before merely extending the duration of the existing take over.

Conclusion: No prior hearing was required before extending the period of take over.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the takeover orders failed on all substantive grounds, and the impugned orders were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a quasi-judicial power on Government, the final decision need not be preceded by a personal hearing by the Minister if the hearing is conducted by a competent departmental and the Minister independently applies his mind to the material; a later reasoned order can cure the absence of reasons if it reflects the basis of the decision; and no fresh prior hearing is implied for a mere extension of an already heard takeover.

---