No viable rehabilitation scheme under sick industrial law can be declined without a formal review application, absent perversity.

An order under section 17(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 requires a rehabilitation scheme only where a workable revival exercise is actually feasible. The absence of a formal review application did not bar the Board from considering the material before it and deciding that no viable scheme could be framed. On the facts, repeated opportunities had yielded no credible revival proposal, the promoters had not seriously participated, and the statutory authorities had concurrently found the company heavily indebted and incapable of revival. Those factual findings were not open to writ interference under Articles 226 and 227 absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or breach of natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after an order under section 17(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the operating agency was bound in every case to formulate a rehabilitation scheme and whether the absence of a formal review application barred the Board from concluding that no viable scheme could be framed; and whether the writ court should interfere with concurrent findings that the company was not viable and was liable to be wound up.

Analysis: An order under section 17(3) requires the operating agency to prepare a scheme only where a workable and feasible rehabilitation exercise is possible. The absence of a formal review application does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to consider materials placed before it and to reach a conclusion on feasibility, viability, and the larger public interest. The record showed repeated opportunities, no credible revival proposal, lack of serious participation by the promoters, no acceptable rehabilitation plan, and concurrent factual findings by the statutory authorities that the company was heavily indebted and incapable of revival. Such findings were factual in nature and could not be upset in writ jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse, without material, or otherwise vitiated by jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The challenge failed. The statutory authorities were justified in concluding that no workable rehabilitation scheme was available and that winding up was warranted, and no ground existed for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: A Board under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is not precluded from determining that no viable rehabilitation scheme can be framed merely because no formal review application is filed, and concurrent factual findings on viability and revival are not ordinarily amenable to writ interference absent perversity or jurisdictional error.

---