Gujarat High Court
SCA/111/1995 of MAJOOR MAHAJAN MANDAL Vs STATE OF GUJ &4 on 20 July 1995
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.111 OF 1995 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Y.B. BHATT Mr. A.K. Clerk, advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether their Lordships
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.111 OF 1995
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Y.B. BHATT
Mr. A.K. Clerk, advocate for the petitioner.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
Coram: Y.B.Bhatt J.
Date:20th July 1995
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGEMENT
1. The petitioner Union has filed this petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the 4threspondent, which has been declared to be a sick industrywithin the meaning of Sick Industrial Companies (SpecialProvisions) Act, 1985. The appropriate proceedings in thisregard are pending before the Board for Industrial Finance andReconstruction. It appears that a scheme for revival wasproposed and the Board, after considering all relevantfactors, appointed second respondent as the Operating Agency.From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it also appears that a report has been furnished bythe Operating Agency in negative terms i.e. the said reportis not favourable as regards prospects of revival. It mayalso be noted that the petitioner union had activelyparticipated in the proceedings before the Board.
2. It is broadly under these circumstances that thepetitioner has approached this court for the reliefs stated inpara 21 of the petition, which obviously cannot be granted.So far as prayer (A) is concerned, it seeks a mandamus fromthis court whereby the Operating Agency would be directed toexamine the scheme proposed by the petitioner union.Obviously this prayer cannot be granted inasmuch as this courthas no jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings whichare already in progress before the Board. In any case, thereis no warrant for any presumption that the Operating Agencyhas refused or would refuse to examine the scheme proposed bythe petitioner. So far as prayer (B) is concerned, again thiscourt has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue any mandatory directions to theState Government to contribute any specific amount of theworkers' contribution to the scheme proposed by the petitionerunion from the National Renewal Fund. As already statedhereinabove, the revival scheme is already the subject matterof the proceedings before the Board. The proceedings beforethe Board, particularly when they are in progress and have notresulted in any final order, are not subject to thesupervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. In the premises aforesaid, thereis no warrant to interfere with such pending proceedings byexercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia. This petition is, therefore, rejected.
3. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner Imay, however, observe that it shall be open to the petitionerunion to make such submissions before the Board as it maychoose to do, or may be advised, looking to the particularfacts and circumstances of the case.
OOOOOOOO