Limited writ review of BIFR and AAIFR orders upheld; High Court will not reappreciate evidence absent jurisdictional error or perversity.

Judicial review under Article 226 over BIFR and AAIFR orders is limited to certiorari grounds, so the High Court will not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the statutory authorities. Interference is justified only for jurisdictional error, perversity, violation of natural justice, or an error apparent on the face of the record. On the facts noted, the prior court arrangement did not curtail BIFR's jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the record did not show that the company had ceased to be sick. The authorities' directions for a fresh rehabilitation scheme and change in management were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the BIFR and AAIFR orders directing preparation of a fresh rehabilitation scheme and inviting change in management of the sick industrial company.

Analysis: Judicial review under Article 226 is confined to certiorari parameters. The Court will not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the statutory authorities. Interference is warranted only where the decision-making process is vitiated by jurisdictional error, perversity, violation of natural justice, or an error apparent on the face of the record. The orders of the Delhi High Court concerning the Court Commissioner arrangement did not curtail the BIFR's jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The record also did not establish that the company had ceased to be sick so as to oust BIFR's jurisdiction. The BIFR considered the long pendency of the matter, the partial implementation of the earlier revival scheme, the failure of the promoters to tie up a viable proposal, and the financial position of the company. The AAIFR concurred on reappraisal of the material. No perversity or material irregularity was shown.

Conclusion: The impugned orders did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, and the BIFR and AAIFR directions relating to rehabilitation and change in management were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ review of BIFR and AAIFR orders, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the decision is vitiated by jurisdictional error, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record.

---