Writ jurisdiction and rehabilitative asset sales: sale deed challenge failed where civil relief was the proper remedy.

A workers' union's writ challenge to a sale deed executed under a rehabilitation process was held to be an unsuitable route for bare declaratory relief, because the dispute targeted the sale transaction itself and the proper remedy lay in civil proceedings. The sale of the company's surplus assets, including the Ambattur property, was also treated as protected where the rehabilitation scheme and later orders authorised the Asset Sales Committee to fix reserve price, accept bids and complete sales, and the repeal of the sick industrial companies legislation did not invalidate acts already done under the earlier authorisations and saving provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the workers' union could maintain a writ petition seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed pursuant to the rehabilitation process was void; (ii) whether the sale of the company's surplus property, including the Ambattur property, was vitiated by lack of permission, procedural irregularity, or the repeal of the sick industrial companies legislation.

Issue (i): Whether the workers' union could maintain a writ petition seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed pursuant to the rehabilitation process was void.

Analysis: The relief claimed was a bare declaration that the sale deed was void, without seeking appropriate consequential relief. The challenge was directed not against the rehabilitation scheme or the decision authorising sale, but against the sale transaction itself. The pleadings showed that the union had participated in the rehabilitation proceedings and was aware of the decision to sell surplus assets. In these circumstances, the proper remedy, if any, lay before the civil forum and not in a writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for the declaratory relief sought, and the union could not successfully assail the sale deed in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale of the company's surplus property, including the Ambattur property, was vitiated by lack of permission, procedural irregularity, or the repeal of the sick industrial companies legislation.

Analysis: The rehabilitation scheme and subsequent orders authorised the Asset Sales Committee to fix reserve price, accept bids, and complete sales of surplus assets, including other properties beyond those specifically named. The objections regarding the Ambattur property and the wells were not shown to establish any legal infirmity in the sale, especially as the respondents stated that sufficient water sources remained available. The repeal of the sick industrial companies legislation did not undo actions already taken, because the saving provision preserved the validity and consequences of acts done pursuant to the prior orders, and the sale had been carried out in accordance with those authorisations.

Conclusion: The sale was not shown to be invalid on the grounds urged, and the repeal of the statute did not abate or nullify the authorised sale process.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the sale deed failed, and the writ petition was dismissed because no enforceable infirmity in the sale was established and the relief sought was not available in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale carried out under a sanctioned rehabilitation process and expressly authorised by the competent statutory committee remains protected by the statutory saving provision on repeal, and a bare writ declaration attacking the sale deed is not an appropriate substitute for civil relief.

---