JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :— At the conclusion of the hearing of the above appeal on March 10, 1986 we passed the following order in the above appeal and the connected special leave petition:

"Special leave granted. We do not agree with the view of the High Court that the loan in question should have been advanced under the Act in order to attract the provisions, of sections 3 and 4 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned single Judge to consider the submissions to be made on other points involved in this case. It is open to the Union which has filed Special Leave Petition No. 3428 of 1986 to apply to the High Court for being impleaded and the High Court on such application being made will consider it in accordance with law. The appeal and Special Leave Petition No. 3428 of 1986 are disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.

Reasons follow."

2. We are quite unhappy with the order of the Bombay High Court against which this appeal is filed. The grounds urged in support of the writ petition were fallacious, the reasons given by the learned single Judge for allowing it were faulty and the order of dismissal of the appeal in limine passed by the Division Bench exhibits indifference. Courts are expected to show more concern and to give greater attention before quashing a statutory instrument made or issued under a beneficent legislation intended to prevent large scale unemployment and misery than what is shown by the High Court in this case.

3. The facts of the case are these. The appellant herein is a private limited company and has been carrying on business in the State of Maharashtra. It ran into financial difficulties as a result of which winding-up proceedings were commenced against it. M/s. Dhariwal Bottle Trading Co., respondent No. 1 herein, which is a partnership firm filed Company Petition No, 119 of 1982 as a creditor for winding-up of the appellant company. The appellant company was carrying on business in a backward area of the State of Maharashtra. It has employed about 200 workmen who were likely to be thrown out of employment. The appellant company had also borrowed about Rs. 52,30,000/- from the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (SICOM). Taking into consideration the financial position of the appellant company, and the consequences that were likely to ensue if the industry which was being run by it was to be closed, the Government of Maharashtra took action under the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by declaring it as a relief undertaking with effect from November 10, 1983 by its notification issued on November 10, 1983 under section 3 and sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. The notification reads thus :

"NOTIFICATION

Industries, Energy and Labour

Department Mantralaya, Bombay

400032, Dated the 10th day of

November, 1983.

No BRU-1083/(9602)/IND-10. In exercise of the powers conferred, by section 3 and sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (Bom. XCVI of 1958), the Government of Maharashtra, hereby -

(a) declares that the industrial undertaking called "M/s. Doburg Lager Breweries (P) Ltd., Bombay" (hereinafter referred to as "the said relief undertaking") to which State Industrial and Investment Corporation Maharashtra Ltd., has provided a loan of Rs. 52.30 lakhs, shall for a period of 6 months commencing from 10th day of November, 1983 be conducted to serve as a measure of unemployment relief; and

(b) directs that in relation to the said relief undertaking and in respect of the said period for which the said relief undertaking continues as such, any right, privilege, obligation or liability (excepting the obligations or liabilities inc