Writ interference in sick company winding-up matters is barred absent illegality when rehabilitation is no longer feasible.

A writ court will not interfere where the statutory board, on the basis of the operating agency's report and relevant material, forms a prima facie view that rehabilitation of a sick industrial company is no longer feasible and that winding up should be considered. Repeated failed revival attempts, lack of essential raw material, and the promoters' unwillingness to fund the further scheme supported the board's conclusion. In the absence of procedural illegality or jurisdictional error, the board's decision to proceed with notice under section 20 was upheld, and no interference was warranted with the recovery demand raised by IPICOL on the facts found.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Board's prima facie view that the sick industrial company could not be revived and that it was just and equitable to consider winding up, together with the direction to issue notice under section 20 and the recovery demand raised by IPICOL, called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The company had earlier been revived on more than one occasion with substantial assistance from financial institutions, but the rehabilitation efforts again failed because the basic raw material was not available and the promoters were unwilling to contribute the funds required for the further scheme. The Board, after considering the report of the operating agency and the relevant circumstances, formed a prima facie opinion that rehabilitation was not feasible and that winding up should be examined. The Court found no breach of any rule or established procedure and no illegality in the Board's decision-making process. It also found no reason to interfere with the demand raised by IPICOL in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The Board's prima facie decision to proceed under section 20 was upheld and the writ court declined to interfere with the recovery demand.

Final Conclusion: The order reflected a permissible exercise of the Board's statutory discretion after repeated rehabilitation failures, and the writ petition was not maintainable for interference on the facts found.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory board, on relevant material and expert assessment, forms a prima facie view that rehabilitation of a sick industrial company is not feasible and that winding up is just and equitable, a writ court will not interfere absent procedural illegality or jurisdictional error.

---