Statutory force of rehabilitation circulars limits writ relief where eligibility depends on disputed facts.

The rehabilitation circular was treated as having statutory force, so mandamus could in principle be available for its enforcement. Even so, the relief remained conditional on satisfaction of the scheme's eligibility criteria, including continuous commercial production for the required period. Because that factual question was seriously disputed, the High Court held it was not suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction and should be examined on evidence. The claim was therefore left to be pursued before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was to decide the request for rehabilitation relief after enquiry.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to enforce the RBI Master Circular on rehabilitation of sick units when entitlement depended on disputed facts, particularly whether the unit had remained in commercial production for at least two years, and when the matter was already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The circular governing rehabilitation was held to have statutory force, and a mandamus could in principle lie for its enforcement. However, the benefit under the scheme was conditional upon satisfaction of the prescribed eligibility criteria. The record revealed a serious factual dispute on whether the unit had been in continuous commercial production for the requisite period. Such disputed factual issues could not be safely decided on writ jurisdiction and were more appropriately left to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, where evidence could be led and the rival claims examined.

Conclusion: No writ mandamus was issued. The petitioner was relegated to raise the claim by way of counter-claim before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was directed to decide the request for rehabilitation relief after enquiry.

---