Judicial review under SICA is limited where appellate findings rest on relevant material showing fabricated accounts and non-bona fide sickness.

Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is limited where a specialised appellate authority under SICA has given a reasoned finding on sickness on relevant material. The authority may reappreciate audited accounts and surrounding financial evidence, record its own conclusions, and set aside the BIFR's finding without being bound to remand or appoint a special investigative auditor. Where the record indicates fabrication of accounts, diversion or siphoning of funds, disappearance of stock, and doubtful receivables, the statutory protection is confined to bona fide sick industrial companies and does not extend to a claim of sickness founded on dishonest practices.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the AAIFR's order setting aside the BIFR's finding of sickness and dismissing the reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on the ground that the company's accounts were fabricated and the claimed sickness was not bona fide.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the scope of judicial review over a reasoned order of the appellate specialised authority under SICA. The material before AAIFR included the audited accounts, reports of chartered accountants, and surrounding financial circumstances, from which it concluded that there had been large-scale diversion and siphoning of funds, disappearance of stock, doubtful receivables, and manipulation of the accounts. The Court held that AAIFR acted within its appellate power under section 25 to reappreciate the material, record its own findings, and set aside the BIFR order without being bound to remand the matter or appoint a special investigative auditor. The Court further held that SICA's protective framework is intended for bona fide sickness and not for cases where sickness is claimed after manipulation of accounts or other dishonest practices.

Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference with the AAIFR's conclusion that the reference was founded on fabricated accounts and that the claim of sickness was not genuine. The challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review, the High Court will not interfere with a specialised appellate authority's reasoned finding on sickness under SICA where the finding is based on relevant material and the record shows fabrication or diversion of funds, since the statute's protection is confined to bona fide sick industrial companies.

---