Writ jurisdiction cannot replace BIFR procedure for extending a section 22(3) SICA declaration.

A declaration under section 22(3) of SICA can be extended only by the BIFR, and the High Court will not use writ jurisdiction to grant that relief in the first instance. Because Articles 226 and 227 confer supervisory, not original, jurisdiction in this context, a petitioner must first approach the statutory forum for extension. Requisition of the record by the High Court does not justify bypassing the BIFR. The maintainability of the writ petition therefore depends on prior recourse to the designated authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, extend a declaration under section 22(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 without the petitioner first approaching the BIFR for such extension.

Analysis: A declaration under section 22(3) can be made only by the BIFR, and any extension of that declaration must ordinarily be sought from the same authority. The High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory, not original, in such matters. The mere fact that the record had been requisitioned by the High Court did not justify bypassing the statutory authority. Since the petitioner had not first approached the BIFR for extension, the writ petition was held to be not maintainable.

Conclusion: The relief sought could not be granted directly by the High Court, and the petition was liable to be dismissed for want of maintainability.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that statutory relief under section 22(3) of SICA must first be pursued before the BIFR, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to assume the Board's original function.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute entrusts a specific relief to a designated authority, the High Court will not exercise writ jurisdiction to grant that relief in the first instance without prior recourse to the statutory forum.

---