ORDER

In CAs Nos. 2576-77 of 1981, 347 of 1986, WPs Nos. 7535-36 of 1985 and CMP No. 18628 of 1986 in CA No. 1292 of 1986

1. These matters are disposed of together. We need not elaborately mention the facts leading to filing of these appeals and writ petitions. Suffice it to state that the validity of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (23 of 1971) was upheld by this Court in Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [(1980) 4 SCC 136 : (1980) 3 SCR 331] However, proceedings before the BIFR are pending to streamline the working of sick industry, namely, U.P. State Sugar Corporation. Shri H.N. Salve, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and writ petitioner in these cases, submitted that he had a discussion with his clients after the case was last adjourned. He suggested that the appellants are proposing to make a representation to the BIFR for consideration of their cases and so it was not necessary to argue the case on merits. In that view, we need not decide the case on merits. It would be open to the appellants to make representation to the BIFR and it would be open to the BIFR to entertain the representation and dispose it of.

2. The appeals and writ petitions are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the above observation. We make it clear that no issue of law or facts is left open in these cases.

3. Pending appeal, the appellant made an application in CMP No. 18628 of 1986 for directions as regards the possession of the bungalow occupied by the Director of the appellant-Company. When there was a conflicting claim as regards the possession, this Court had called for a report from the District Judge, Bulandshahr. In furtherance thereof, the District Judge submitted the report. On consideration of the report by proceedings dated 9-1-1990 this Court passed the order as under :

"In this case, a report has been received from the learned District Judge as to the persons who are in possession of the property as on May 9, 1986. These are clearly prima facie findings in order to enable this Court to pass an interim order. We direct that the status quo regarding the possession, as reported by the District Judge, will continue till the disposal of the case.

We may make it clear that we do not pronounce regarding the title to the property in question and also regarding any question of mesne profits which the appellants may be entitled to. The appellants, if they so desire, may take the appropriate proceeding in the matter."

4. In view of the fact that we are now dismissing the appeals as withdrawn we make it clear that the order and the status quo order stand discharged. Whoever seeks any positive directions as regards the possession of the bungalow, it would be open to the appropriate party to take such procedure as is available at law. We give eight weeks time from today to take such steps; until then the status quo order granted by this Court would be continued for eight weeks only and no further. As regards the vesting and other incidental issues, it would be open to the appropriate parties to lay proceedings under Section 10 of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings Act before the prescribed authority which would decide the matter in accordance with law. It would be open to the prescribed authority to consider the question independently on its own merit in accordance with law and it would be open to the parties to place such material as is available to them at law.

In CA No. 2578 of 1981

5. Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

In CAs Nos. 1292-93 of 1986 and WP No. 378 of 1986

6. These matters are disposed of together. We need not elaborately mention the facts leading to file these appeals and writ petitions. Suffice it to state that the validity of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 was upheld by this Court in Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [(1980) 4 SCC 136 : (1980) 3 SCR 331] However, proceedings before the BIFR is pending to streamline the working of