@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.A. Puj, J.@mdashThe applicant-Official Liquidator has filed this application seeking review of the order dated 18.7.2005 passed by this Court in O.L.R. No. 61 of 2005 and for recalling the observations, findings and directions made against him and particularly, those made, inter alia, in paragraph Nos. 42 to 46 thereof. The Official Liquidator has also prayed for stay against the implementation, execution and operation of the directions issued by this Court qua him and particularly, those contained in paragraph Nos. 42 to 46 of the order dated 18.7.2005 in O.L.R. No. 61 of 2005.
2. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior advocate with Mr. Vimal M. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the Official Liquidator has submitted that the directions are given by this Court in para Nos. 42 to 46 without hearing the applicant on those issues and without calling for any explanation from the applicant. Certain observations are straightaway found in the order itself. The Official Liquidator has not been given any opportunity to revert back about the observations made in the said paragraphs. The observations made by this Court are, therefore, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Joshi has further submitted that this Court in para Nos. 42 to 46 has straightaway come to some definite conclusions without undertaking any inquiry in the matter and when such observations are made by way of final conclusion, the inquiry which is ordered is merely an empty formality or eye wash. The authority will certainly be guided by these observations which are made in the order.
3. Mr. Joshi has further submitted that the Official Liquidator and his office have taken all necessary steps. In support of this contention, certain documents and office correspondence are produced along with this application. Mr. Joshi has further submitted that the observations made and directions issued by this Court are beyond the scope of the present application as they have nothing to do with confirmation of sale. Such directions and observations are not warranted and even if they are warranted, the Official Liquidator was not informed earlier about the same. Mr. Joshi has, therefore, submitted that before making such observations and issuing such directions, the Court should have called for explanation from the Official Liquidator and should have given an opportunity to produce relevant documents and thereafter if this Court thought it fit and appropriate, necessary directions could have been issued. Since this exercise has not been undertaken and the Court has straightaway come to the conclusion, issued directions and made certain observations, the same are not only prejudicial to him but also adversely affect to his office. He has, therefore, submitted that the observations made and directions issued in para Nos. 42 to 46 of the order may be recalled and the order may be modified to this effect.
4. After having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant and after having gone through the application filed by the applicant and the documents attached therewith, the Court is of the view that the observations made and directions issued in para Nos. 42 to 46 of the judgment and order under review are prima facie in nature and no final conclusion has been drawn by the Court. There is no substance in the argument that the directions issued and observations made are in violation of the principles of natural justice as during the course of hearing of O.L.R. No. 61 of 2005 on different occasions, the issue regarding missing items and theft of movables such as plant and machineries as well as building structures and other materials of the Company-in-liquidation was crept in. Specific allegations were made about the involvement of the Office of the Official Liquidator in the deployment of Security and inaction on his part to take prompt action. Precisely for this reason, the Court has called for the Inventory Reports as well as Valuation Reports from the Official Liquidator and based on these reports, the observations were made by the Court.
5. The Court is further of the view that while dealing with Company matters over the past six to eight months, there were many instances which the Court has come across indicating the massive irregularities in the function and working of the Office of the Official Liquidator and for that reason only, the Court has not confined to the facts of O.L.R. No. 61 of 2005 but keeping in mind the overall scenario, the said observations were made. Moreover, the Court has not given any finding on the issues which are to be inquired and investigated. The Central Government is directed to make proper inquiry and investigation in the matter. The details which are produced before the Court along with the present application can certainly be produced before the Inquiry or Investigating Officer and the same can be looked into by such authority. As a result of any such properly conducted inquiry and investigation, if anything adverse is found, the question of taking appropriate action would arise. Instead of raising any objection against such directions or feeling shy to face such inquiry, the Official Liquidator should co-operate by furnishing necessary details and documentary evidence before the Investigating Agency and prove that no one is involved from his office nor any one has acted in any manner in collusion or connivance with any of the parties mentioned in the order. He has to prove before such Investigating Agency that while dealing with the Security Agency, auction purchasers, Valuers, Workers or Creditors, he has acted as per the directions issued by this Court or that he has taken due care in all matters. Furthermore, the Office of the Official Liquidator is attached to this Court. All assets of the Company-in-liquidation are in charge, control and supervision of this Court. The Official Liquidator is answerable for any act or omission on his part qua the Company-in-liquidation. His all actions and decisions must be irreproachable. When any finger is raised against him or his office and Court''s confidence starts shaking, such inquiry or investigation is necessary. The Court, therefore, does not find any substance in the present application. It is, therefore, rejected.
6. Before parting, the Court makes it clear that the observations made in the judgment and order under review are prima facie in nature and the authority will decide the issues on the basis of their own merits and in light of the submissions made or documentary evidences produced before them, without being influenced by the order under review or by present order.
7. With the above clarification, this application is accordingly, disposed of.
