Section 15A for investigating a closed industrial undertaking in liquidation was upheld as valid, guided by relevant material and clear statutory policy.

Section 15A was construed to apply to a company in liquidation even where its business had remained closed for several years, provided the business was not being continued when the opinion was formed. The Central Government's opinion had to rest on relevant material with a rational nexus to the statutory purpose, and the record on capacity, production loss, employment, exports, assets, and technical condition was held sufficient; no prior hearing was required before forming that opinion. The article 14 challenge failed because the statute supplied clear policy and guiding criteria, and the alleged mala fides were not established on the surrounding facts. The provision was therefore treated as constitutionally valid and operative for investigation into restarting the undertaking.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 15A applied to a company in liquidation whose business had remained closed for several years; (ii) whether the Central Government had formed the requisite opinion on relevant materials and whether absence of hearing vitiated that opinion; (iii) whether section 15A was violative of article 14; and (iv) whether the application was mala fide.

Issue (i): whether section 15A applied to a company in liquidation whose business had remained closed for several years.

Analysis: The provision was held to apply to a company being wound up by or under the supervision of the High Court whose business was not being continued. The expression was construed according to its context and not as limited to a recent cessation of business. The reference to investigation into the possibility of restarting the undertaking showed that the section covered undertakings closed even for years, so long as the business was not being continued when the opinion was formed.

Conclusion: The section applied and the application was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the Central Government had formed the requisite opinion on relevant materials and whether absence of hearing vitiated that opinion.

Analysis: The opinion required by section 15A was a subjective opinion, but it still had to rest on relevant material having a rational nexus with the statutory purpose. The materials placed on record concerning the mill's capacity, production loss, employment implications, export potential, asset value, and technical condition were held sufficient. The section did not require notice or hearing before formation of opinion, and no adverse civil consequence followed merely from authorising an investigation.

Conclusion: The requisite opinion was validly formed and was not vitiated for want of hearing.

Issue (iii): whether section 15A was violative of article 14.

Analysis: The challenge of unguided discretion failed because the Act's preamble and the statutory text supplied clear policy and criteria for selection, namely necessity in the interests of the general public and in particular for production, supply or distribution of the relevant articles. Sections 15 and 15A were held to operate in different situations and were not similarly situated. The alleged availability of two discriminatory procedures was also rejected because the alternative under the general law was not treated as a competing statutory procedure of the same kind.

Conclusion: Section 15A was not unconstitutional under article 14.

Issue (iv): whether the application was mala fide.

Analysis: The surrounding circumstances did not establish an oblique motive. The earlier failed attempt to run the mills, the prior invalidation of the former order, and the later resort to the new statutory provision did not show mala fides once the statutory conditions and relevant materials were present.

Conclusion: The allegation of mala fides was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory preconditions for seeking permission under section 15A were satisfied, the constitutional challenge failed, and the Central Government was entitled to investigate the possibility of restarting the undertaking.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to seek permission for investigation into restarting a closed industrial undertaking in liquidation is valid where the Act supplies objective legislative policy and sufficient guiding criteria, the requisite governmental opinion is founded on relevant materials, and no prior hearing is mandated unless the statute so provides.

---