( 1 ) THIS petition has been preferred by one Kamdar Ladat Samiti of Nanikram shobraj Mills Limited and its associated units through its President one Shri premshankar Tiwari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders made by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the board) on 31/12/1997 in Case No. 24 of 1996 under Section 20 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. 1983. (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27/7/1998. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:"30. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner prays as under: (A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the order of the BIFR dated December 31,1997, in Reference Application No. 24/96, under section 20 (1) of the Sick Industrial companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, at Annexure F and order dated 21,7. 98 passed by the Appellate Authority at annexure G: (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition. Your Lordships be pleased to stay and suspend the operation and implementation of the order of the BIFR dated December 31,1997, in Reference application No. 24/96, under section 20 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act, 1985, at Annexure F, and the order dated 21. 7. 98 passed by the appellate Authority at Annexure G: (C) Ex parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (B) may kindly be granted; (D) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts of the case may be granted. "

( 2 ) IT is averred in the petition that nanikram Shobraj Mills Ltd. . (Mill company) and its associate units. Modern silk Mills. Crown Silk Mills and j. K. Sovirana Textile Mills are situated at saraspur and Sobhraj Park. Ahmedabad: the units at Saraspur are carrying on weaving process while units located at sobhraj Park are processing cloth. It is further stated that since 1992 the production and finance of the Mill company started deteriorating and in january. 1996 the Management closed down all operations of the Mill Company. Pursuant to such closure the Mill company filed a Reference before BIFR under Section 15 (1) of the Act and the said Reference came to be numbered as case No. 24/96. On 31/12/1997 the bench of BIFR passed the order under section 20 of the Act holding that it was just and equitable and in public interest if the Mill Company was wound up.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed an appeal bearing Appeal No. 68/98 before the appellate Authority and the Appellate authority for the reasons stated in its order dated 27/7/1996 confirmed the order of Board. "

( 4 ) THE basic case of the petitioner is that the orders passed by the Board and the Appellate Authority are bad in law as neither the Board nor the operating agency viz. IDBI examined the merits of the proposal moved by the petitioner for revival of the Mill Company. In support of the aforesaid contention the petitioner has referred to and relied upon its applications made for being joined as party in the proceedings before BIFR; its applications to the operating agency for obtaining certain information pertaining to Mill company so as to frame suitable proposal: submission of outline of proposal on 3/9/1996 and detailed scheme for revival forwarded vide letter dated 27/9/1996. According to the petitioner the Board passed an order on 1/10/1996 recording that the Scheme did not give sufficient particulars and hence there was no acceptable proposal which could provide revival of the Mill Company within a reasonable time frame, and thus recording a prima facie opinion that it was not possible for the Mill Company to turn its networth positive within a reasonable time frame, and directing issuance of show cause notice inviting objections before 31/ 12/1996. The petitioner also refers to correspond