Section 22 sick company bar limits coercive recovery, and a shareholder without authority lacks standing to seek mandamus.

Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars revenue recovery and other coercive proceedings once a reference is registered and an inquiry under section 16(2) is pending, unless the Board consents. In that setting, a writ of mandamus cannot be used to compel recovery steps against the company. The petitioner also lacked locus standi because he was only a shareholder, not the creditor entitled to the amount, the amount due to him had already been paid, and he had no authorization to act for the society or other employees. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether revenue recovery or coercive proceedings could be directed in the face of the statutory bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; (ii) whether the petitioner had locus standi to seek the writ of mandamus.

Issue (i): whether revenue recovery or coercive proceedings could be directed in the face of the statutory bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: Once the company's reference had been registered and inquiry under section 16(2) had been ordered by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, the inquiry was treated as pending for the purposes of section 22. The Court applied the principle that, on commencement of such inquiry, proceedings for execution or recovery against the company cannot proceed further except with the Board's consent. In that situation, no mandamus could issue to compel coercive recovery steps against the company.

Conclusion: The statutory bar under section 22 operated, and the request for directing revenue recovery proceedings was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner had locus standi to seek the writ of mandamus.

Analysis: The petitioner was only a shareholder and not the creditor to whom the amount was due. The amount payable to him had already been satisfied, and there was no authorization from the society or from the other employees. As the society itself was not shown to be disabled from taking proceedings, the petitioner could not maintain the writ as a representative claimant.

Conclusion: The petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed both on the statutory bar against recovery proceedings and on the petitioner's standing to invoke mandamus, and the dismissal followed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Once inquiry under section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is pending, section 22 automatically stays coercive proceedings against the company's assets unless the Board consents; a writ of mandamus to compel such recovery cannot be issued without a legally enforceable right in the petitioner.

---