TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (7) TMI 1210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same order has been passed in violation of sub-paragraph (6) of Regulation 20 of BIFR Regulations, 1987 without giving any hearing to the petitioners as well as the other respondents Union. Relying on the order dated 30-8-2000, Mr. Subodh Ukil, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that Form AA which is the foundation for the procedure was not furnished to the Union which was directed to be furnished by the said order dated 30-8-2000 pursuant to which the petitioners had submitted its written statement and representation. Therefore, by reason of sub-paragraph (6) of Regulation 20, it was incumbent on the Board to give hearing to the petitioners as well as the other Unions. Instead of doing so, the Board had passed an order witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alt with in the cursory manner as has been made by the said order. Therefore, the order dated 23-2-2001 should be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Board for passing fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the Unions. 4. Mr. Anindya Mitra, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Coal India and Eastern Coalfields India Limited on the other hand contended that appeal lies under section 25 of the Sick Industrial Compa-nies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act') and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. He further contends that sub-paragraph (6) of Regulation 20 does not postulate giving of hearing as mandatory. It is only that any of the parties want to be heard, he is to intimate the Boa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 8. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Mitra to the extent that in view of section 25 having an adequate alternative remedy, this writ petition should be dismissed. Admittedly, section 25 provides for an alternative remedy by way of appeal whether all these questions can be gone into. But before embarking on the said question we will refer to the merits of the case as contended, namely, whether opportunity of hearing was given and whether such opportunity of hearing was mandatory and that in the absence of it, this Court is empowered to interfere with the order. 9. It appears that the petitioners had submitted written statement before the Board after the order dated 11-1-2000 was passed prima facie treating the company as sick ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sked to submit specific observation relating to erosion of networth in terms of the Act and the mandatory accounting policies to the Bench within fifteen days. It is further noted in the said order that on receipt of the Company's statement and those of the other involved agencies, the Bench would pass further appropriate order with or without holding any further hearing while directing the holding company as Government of India to depute their Senior Officer duly authorised for the next hearing. The representative of the holding company and the representative of Govt. of India were not present on the said day's hearing. Now it appears that the petitioners had submitted its representations and comments which is Annexure 'L' to this writ pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that they would like to participate in the hearing shall file with the Board not less than 10 days before the date of hearing, a written statement containing the gist of the submissions that they would like to make at the hearing. 11. Thus, sub-paragraph (6) of Regulation 20 does not postulate giving hearing unless it is asked for. It is at the discretion of the Board to give such hearing or not to give such hearing, even when asked for. In the present case hearing was given and that the petitioners and other Unions had made their submissions. But whether they would be interested in further hearing or not, it does not appear from any of the documents produced before this Court that they had asked for further hearing as contemplated in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there has been a flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice and equity, then this Court can invoke writ jurisdiction despite existence of alternative remedy. 15. As discussed above, for the purpose of finding out tentative or prima facie finding, I find that there has been no violation of the fundamental principle of law nor there has been any flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice and equity. However, this finding has been gone into tentatively for the purpose of deciding the writ petition. All points are kept open to be decided by the appellate authority when any appeal is preferred by any of the parties. This point will remain open to be agitated before the appellate authority and the appellate authority ....