BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks the setting aside of the order dated 11. 12. 2006 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'drat') in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 150/2003, which, in turn, arose out of an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'drt') on 18. 11. 2003 in IA No. 507/2003 in O. A. No. 439/2000 (Delhi-I ).

( 2 ) THE entire controversy in this writ petition centres around the question of whether the petitioner herein had the permission and/or consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'bifr') under Section 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'sica') prior to the institution of the said O. A. No. 439/2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. According to the petitioner, it had the permission and/or prior consent of bifr for instituting the said O. A. No. 439/2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance on a communication of May 2000 issued by the bench Officer to establish the same.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, it is the case of the respondent No. 1 company that the said communication of May 2000 cannot be regarded as "the consent of the Board" as contemplated under Section 22 (1) of SICA.

( 4 ) IN the year 1990, the respondent No. 1 became a sick company and made a reference to the BIFR under Section 15 (1) of SICA. The said reference came to be registered as Case No. 151/1990. By an order dated 14. 03. 1991, the BIFR declared the respondent No. 1 as a sick company and appointed idbi as the operating agency for preparing a scheme of rehabilitation of the company. During the pendency of the proceedings before the BIFR, a writ petition [civil Writ Petition No. 45214/1993] was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by one Bhartiya Kisan Union. The Allahabad high Court, by an order dated 10. 12. 1993, stayed further proceedings in case No. 151/1990 pending before the BIFR. In the meanwhile, BIFR had received several applications/letters from creditors requesting for permission to initiate the proceedings against the respondents. It is thereafter that the following communication was issued by the Bench Officer of the BIFR in May 2000:-

"case No. 151/90dated: 5. 2000 to as per list enclosed. SUB: Case No. 151/90: MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. In this case the Board has received a number of requests from the secured/unsecured creditors filing their claims against the captioned company with this Board. The case has been placed before the bench and the bench has noted that writ petition filed by the Bharatiya Kisan union in the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad against winding up of the captioned company is still pending and the stay granted by that Court vide judgment/order dated 10. 12. 93 on the proceedings of BIFR in respect of the company, is still operative. Accordingly, the bench has advised all secured creditors that they may be permitted to (i) move Allahabad High Court for vacation of stay if they so wish and (ii) file suits for recovery of their dues, if desired, but no decree to be executed without prior permission of this board. By the order of the Board h. K. Gupta bench Officer"

( 5 ) ON the basis of the said communication of May 2000, the petitioner filed the said O. A. No. 439/2000 (Delhi-I) before the Debts Recovery tribunal. In the O. A. itself, the petitioner had indicated that the BIFR, by its order dated 05. 05. 2000, permitted the petitioner, being a secured creditor, to file the suit (O. A.) for the recovery of its dues.

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, by a communication dated 13. 09. 2000 issued by the registrar of BIFR, it was notified that the Bench, "after due consideration has withdrawn forthwith the permission granted by the Board to the secured creditors to file recovery suits". Since this communication is of material significance in deciding the controversy at hand, the same is set out hereund