1. Heard Mr. B.R. Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Niral R. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(A) To allow this petition and to issue appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the respondent's impugned action of seeking coercive recovery of its dues from the petitioner pursuant to its notices dated 27.5.1996 and 6.8.1996 at Annexure 'B' & 'D' respectively to this petition; by holding and declaring the same to be arbitrary, discriminatory, unauthorised, illegal and unconstitutional.
(B) By way of interim relief, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to forthwith stay the recovery by the respondent's impugned notices dt. 27.5.1996 and 6.8.1996 at Annexure 'B' & 'D' respectively to this petition, pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition.
(C) To grant such other and further reliefs that may be deemed just and proper in the premises.
(D) To provide for the costs of this petition,"
3. It is evident from the averments made in the petition that the proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "SICA Act") were pending before the competent authority in view of Section 22 of SICA Act, wherein the recovery was challenged. It appears from the record that relying upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: B.N. Kirpal, CJ and H.L. Gokhle, J. as they were then) passed in Civil Application No.931 of 1995 in Letters Patent Appeal No.175 of 1995, this Court while admitting the matter was pleased to grant interim relief as prayed for. The petition is filed as such against the notices of recovery issued by the respondent way back on 27.5.1996 and 6.8.1996.
4. Mr.
B.R. Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. Niral Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent have submitted that no proceedings as on date are pending before the BIFR under the provisions of SICA Act. Mr. Gupta further submitted that in fact a scheme has been approved by the Board.
5. In view of the above development, as the petition has become infructuous, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the respondent authority. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated. No order as to costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top