( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed aggrieved by, the order passed by the aaifr dated 31st December, 2001. The petitioner company had filed a second reference on the basis of audited accounts for the year ending 31st march, 2000 which was registered with BIFR at serial number 194/2001 dated 24th May, 2001. The said reference was dismissed in limine vide order dated 27th August, 2001. Aggrieved by said order an appeal was filed by the petitioner before AAFIR which was also dismissed by order dated 31st December, 2001 which is impugned in this writ petition.

( 2 ) PRIOR to the said reference, another reference was filed by the. petitioner company on the basis of the accounts up to 30th September, 1996. The BIFR on the said reference had declared the company sick, vide orders passed on 23rd June, 2000. Respondent No. 2/state Bank of India and respondent No. 3/punjab National Bank filed an appeal before the aaifr and AAIFR on 17th April, 2001 set aside the order of the BIFR. Aggrieved by the said order of the AAIFR, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court being Civil Writ Petition No. 1916/2002 which was decided on 4th October, 2004. In the impugned order passed by the AAIFR on the second reference of the petitioner company, reliance was placed by the AAIFR on its order dated 17th April, 2001 which was set aside in the civil Writ Petition No. 1916/2002 by order dated 4th October, 2004, it would be relevant to refer the observation made in the said order. Para 11 of the said order dated 4th October, 2004 is as under :-

"11. There is no finding on the basis of the Report of the Chartered accountants appointed by the Operative Agency that the accounts were doctored or manipulated. A statement with regard to the provisions made by the petitioner was admitted by the financial institutions which is reflected from para 13 as above. In the circumstances, on what basis AAIFR has come to the conclusion that accounts were manipulated or doctored. AAIFR was not justified in coming to the finding that the accounts were doctored or manipulated said observation reflects sheer non-application of mind, reversal of the finding of BIFR that accounts were not doctored and fictitious and only had a discrepancy make the finding of AAIFR on the matter perverse and illegal. The law is well-settled. The Appellate Authority could not come to its own conclusion bereft of material before the BIFR and considerations of the record of the court of first instance. In the absence of any finding on the basis of the Report of the Chartered Accountants appointed by the OA itself that the petitioner s accounts were manipulated or doctored, the finding of the AAIFR that the accounts were manipulated, cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances and in law. To that extent the order of AAIFR is bad in law and is set aside. We quash the order with regard to the finding about manipulation in accounts by aaifr which was without taking into consideration the entire and relevant portion of the Report of Chartered Accountants M/s Ray and ray Company. The report of M/s Radbin Consultants has to be considered by BIFR. We remand the matter back to the BIFR to decide in accordance with law, after taking into consideration M/s Radbin consultants Report. In view of the stand of the respondent that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the financial institutions have considered the report and rejected the same cannot stand to reason on the basis of arguments advanced before us. We held that consideration of the M/s. Radbin Consultants report on the basis of finding of AAIFR regarding doctored documents by financial institution was not proper consideration. The contention of the respondents that m/s. Radbin Consultants report which was obtained by oa itself pursuant to the order of the BIFR, which in the opinion of the respondents is not material, is specifically rejected as question of sickness and the unit s feasibility for rehabilitation