Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The present writ petition raises the following question of law:

Whether a Public Sector Enterprise/Undertaking (for short "PSU?) having dues outstanding in respect of a commercial transaction from a sick company within the meaning of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the SICA?) falls within the definition of "other authority" for purposes of Section 19(1) of the SICA and is entitled to the benefit of Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the SICA of circulation of the scheme and entitlement to obtain its consent?

2. Respondent No. 1 Company supplied one unit of 12KA, 360V DC 6 Pulse Tyristor Converter System to the Petitioner Company against a purchase order dated 10.4.1996 for a plant at Alwar. Only some part payments were made when the net worth of the Petitioner Company was wiped out and, thus, proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner Company under the SICA for being declared as a sick company. These proceedings resulted in examination of a scheme for revival of the Petitioner Company and the final approved scheme in terms of the order dated 30.11.2006 of the BIFR envisaged settlement of dues of secured and unsecured creditors at 26.50 per cent and 10 per cent of the principal amount respectively.

3. It is the case of Respondent No. 1 Company that it did not come to know of these proceedings, and it is only after about two (2) years when an appeal was filed before the AAIFR (aggrieved by the fact that Respondent No. 1 Company was being treated under the head of "unsecured creditors?, which would entitle it only to 10 per cent of the principal amount) did it become aware of the said proceedings. It is the case of Respondent No. 1 Company that the said Company is a Central PSU and has to be treated as "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and would, thus, be covered within the meaning of "other authority" under Section 19(1) of the SICA which would entitle it to a prior notice under Section 19(2) of the SICA.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy, the relevant provisions are reproduced as under:

19. Rehabilitation By Giving Financial Assistance. (1) Where the scheme relates to preventive, ameliorative, remedial and other measures with respect to any sick industrial company, the scheme may provide for financial assistance by way of loans, advances or guarantees or relief's or concessions or sacrifices from the Central Government, a State Government, any scheduled bank or other bank, a public financial institution or State level institution or any institution or other authority (any Government bank, institution or other authority required by a scheme to provide for such financial assistance being hereafter in this section referred to as the person required by the scheme to provide financial assistance) to the sick industrial company.

(2) Every scheme referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be circulated to every person required by the scheme to provide financial assistance for his consent within a period of sixty days from the date of such circulation or within such further period, not exceeding sixty days, as may be allowed by the Board, and if no consent is received within such period or further period, it shall be deemed that consent has been given.

5. The plea of Respondent No. 1 Company found favour with the AAIFR in terms of the impugned order dated 12.10.2010 on the premise that the term "other authority" used in Section 19(1) of the SICA will take its colour from Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 1 being a PSU was, thus, covered within the meaning of "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and consequently under Section 19(1) of the SICA.

6. Another fact taken note of by the AAIFR is that a subsequent order was passed by the BIFR on 26.3.2010 in terms whereof the Petitioner Company was discharged from the purview of SICA/BIFR as its net worth had become positive a