Statutory bar under sick-company law did not stop recovery of environmental compensation; later special law prevailed.

Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar recovery of compensation awarded under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, because the liability arose under a later special enactment with overriding effect under section 24. The two statutes operated in different fields, and to the extent of any inconsistency the environmental law prevailed over the earlier sick-company protection. Recovery proceedings under the Environment (Protection) Act therefore could not be stayed merely because BIFR proceedings were pending, and the writ petition for mandamus failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statutory bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, protected the petitioner from recovery proceedings for compensation awarded under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, during pendency of proceedings before the BIFR.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, suspends certain coercive proceedings against a sick industrial company, but its operation depends on the nature of the liability and the statutory scheme governing the recovery. The compensation in question had been awarded under a later special enactment, and that award had already attained finality. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, by section 24, gives overriding effect to its provisions and the Rules or Orders made thereunder over inconsistent enactments. The two enactments operate in different fields, and where there is inconsistency between special statutes, the later law with overriding force prevails. On that basis, the recovery mechanism under the Environment (Protection) Act could not be arrested merely because proceedings under the sick companies legislation were pending.

Conclusion: The statutory protection under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, did not stay recovery of the compensation awarded under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the petitioner was not entitled to mandamus.

Final Conclusion: The recovery proceedings were held to be valid and the writ petition failed, as the later special environmental statute prevailed over the earlier sick-company protection to the extent of inconsistency.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two special enactments are inconsistent, the later statute with an overriding provision prevails in respect of the matter specifically governed by it, and the protective bar under the earlier statute does not suspend recovery proceedings authorised by the later enactment.

---