Justice A Rajasheker Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday reserved his judgment in the petitions filed by Karvy Stock Broking Ltd, a Hyderabad-based brokerage company, challenging the decision of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in ordering a probe by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) into the company’s alleged financial irregularities. The judge directed the Ministry and the SFIO not to take any steps till the court passes its order in the case.
During the course of the hearing, Senior Counsel S Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that the SFIO had issued notices to the company on June 16 and 19 this year in contravention to the provisions of Companies Act, 2013, and urged to stay its operation. He said the Ministry had taken the decision without following the due process of law or a proper inquiry and passed the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Centre can issue a notice only after hearing the company’s arguments, he added. Assistant Solicitor General N Rajeshwar Rao submitted that the action of the company affected the interests of over 80,000 depositors. The investigation into the case proved that the company indulged in financial irregularities. In spite of several debts, Karvy transferred around `425 crore to the realty sector. The Centre issued notices based on the report submitted by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), he added. Concluding the arguments, the judge reserved his orders .
Lifting of lockdown: HC dismisses PIL against govt
Adivision bench of Telangana High Court, on Tuesday, dismissed the PIL filed challenging the decision of the State government to lift the lockdown from June 8 and to open religious places. The bench said it would not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision, unless there was a violation of fundamental rights or violation of provision of law. The petitioner may have apprehension that easing down of lockdown may result in disastrous consequences, but it cannot be forgotten that there is no compulsion for any particular individual to visit any religious place, hotels, restaurants or shopping malls, the bench added.
The bench was hearing a PIL filed by Sunitha Krishnan, human rights activist, who sought extension of the lockdown by engaging services of paramilitary forces for better implementation, and to equip the public health system and to provide safety precautions for the entire medical fraternity and to open religious places after July 15. The bench, in its order, said that the power of judicial review is a plenary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
There cannot be any absolute limitation in exercise of power of the High Court in relation to matters concerning public policy. The courts have to keep in mind that policy making is in the exclusive domain of executive authorities. Unless such decision is made with mala fides, or in gross abuse of power, ordinarily, the courts would not interfere.