Veena Birbal, J.

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 03.03.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘AAIFR’) wherein it is held that respondent no.2 is no more a sick industrial company under Section 3(1)(o) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SICA’) as its net worth has turned positive as such Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as ‘BIFR’) as well as AAIFR ceases to have any jurisdiction over the said company.

2. Briefly the facts necessary for disposal of present writ petition are as under:-

On 22.06.1998, respondent no. 2, i.e., Dunlop India Ltd was declared a sick industrial company in terms of Section 3(1)(o) of SICA and IDBI (Industrial Development Bank of India) was appointed as the O.A. (Operating Agency) under Section 17(3) of SICA to examine the viability of the company and submit its report for its revival. Subsequently, the O.A. was changed and State Bank of India was appointed as the O.A. After several hearings, the BIFR vide its order dated 19.10.2001 directed the company to sort out all issues and submit its Draft Rehabilitation Scheme through O.A. within 60 days. Pending approval of draft rehabilitation scheme, on 31.08.2006 and on 06.11.2006, respondent no. 2 filed applications before BIFR seeking its permission for issue of Rs. 2 crore equity shares of Rs. 10/- each fully paid up at par to its promoters and/or its associates on private placement basis against full consideration to be utilized for rehabilitation of the company and passing further specific directions incidental thereto for the purpose of listing these shares in stock exchanges in dematerialized form. On the basis of above request of respondent no. 2, the BIFR passed an order dated 16.03.2007 permitting the company to enhance its authorized share capital from Rs. 70 crores to Rs. 75 crores. The company was further permitted to issue equity shares of face value of Rs. 10/- each worth Rs. 27 crores, at par, on rights basis against payment of full consideration within a period of one month from the date of the order by exempting respondent no. 2 from compliance of the requirements under various Acts/Regulations formulated by Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and stock exchanges as applicable. The said order was challenged by the petitioner as well as SEBI and BSE by filing separate appeals before AAIFR which were disposed of by common impugned order dated 03.03.2008 contending that the impugned order could not have been passed as no scheme under Section 18(1) of SICA had been prepared by the O.A. The SEBI and BSE had raised other contentions also which are not relevant for the disposal of present writ petition as they are not before us nor it is informed that they have challenged the impugned order. It was also contended before BIFR that no notice was given to the secured creditors by the BIFR before passing the impugned order. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent before the Tribunal was that there was no necessity to hear them and BIFR was totally justified in passing the impugned order for revival of the company by exempting the company from provisions of various Acts/Regulations. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent company submitted the judgment of Madras High Court in W.P.(C) No. 24422/2006 wherein it is held that Dunlop India Ltd i.e., respondent no. 2 ceases to be a sick industrial company. The Madras High Court examined the audited balance sheet of the respondent company and noted that the audited balance sheet of the company as on 31.03.2007 was showing a positive net worth and the company had already moved an application before the BIFR praying for de-registration of the case which had not been disposed of for 9 months. It was he