Learned counsel for the petitioners has attacked the two orders on the following grounds: (1)the order of November 8, 1955, is not a lawful order, as it does not fulfill one of the essential requirements of section 18A of the Act under which it purports to have been made; (2)even assuming that the order was a good order when it was made, section 18A of the Act does not authorise an extension of the period during which the order is to remain in force, in the manner in which the extension was made on November 7, 1956, and such extension did not comply with one of the essential requirements of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, (No. X of 1897); and (3)in any event, the order is not a bonafide order in that the Central Government appointed the very person who was mismanaging the undertaking, who was one of the parties to a pending dispute, and against whom an order of injunction had been passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction.