ANANT S. DAVE , J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayers :

“14 (a) Be pleased to quash and set aside Notice dated 23.06.2009 issued by respondent u/s. S.13 (4) of the Securitisation Act, 2002.

(b) Pending Admission, Hearing and Final disposal of this petition, respondent be restrained to take any further steps under Securitisation Act, 2002.

(c) costs of this petition be awarded

(d) Such further and other relief, order or direction which may be just, fit, proper and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the petition.”

2. Short facts for which present petition is filed for determination of question of law involved are as under :

2.1. In the year 2001, the petitioner-Paschim Petrochem Ltd. (in short “PPL”) filed reference before BIFR under Section 15 (1) of the SICA, 1985, which was registered as No.291 of 2001 and ICICI Bank being secured creditor and party to the said reference, various hearing took place. Meanwhile by way of deed of assignment in the month of May, 2005 creditor Bank ICICI assigned their secured rights, debts to the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd (in short “KMBL”) and BIFR issued certain directions by declaring the company as sick and appointed IDBI as the operating agency under section 17 (3) of the Act to prepare a rehabilitation scheme as per the guidelines annexed their with.

2.2. Therefore, according to the petitioner the above decision of BIFR declaring the petitioner as sick industry all assessment of the sick company is under complete control, command and custody of the BIR and, therefore, respondent Bank is a party to the above adjudication such decision is binding to them and they are estopped to act contrary to BIFR and without any consent of BIFR no proceedings can be taken under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2.3. That, during the pendency of the proceedings before the BIFR, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., issued notice under Section 13 (2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short “Securitisation Act, 2002”) which was replied by the petitioner under section 13 (3A) of the Act and later on symbolic/constructive possession of secured assets was taken over on 23.6.2009 by pasting the notice of possession and authorised officer had drawn panchnama and even as required under Rule 8 (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement Rules), 2002 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., ( in short “KMBL”) published said notice of possession in two leading newspapers on 1.7.2009 and accordingly on 17th July, 2009 authorised officer of KMBL informed the Chairman, BIFR, New Delhi that in view of third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ( in short “SICA Act, 1985”) reference pending before the Hon'ble Bench stood abated.

3. That challenging the above notice, learned advocate for the petitioner contends that in view of culmination of proceedings before BIFR and order of declaration of petitioner being sick was passed by BIFR on 19.9.2005 under Section 17(3) of SICA, it cannot be said that protection under Section 22 (1) of SICA, 1985 is not available to the petitioner by virtue of third proviso to Section 15(1) of SICA, 1985 and Section 41 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 reference has abated. Therefore, respondents were duty bound to seek permission under Section 22 of SICA, 1985.

3.1. Therefore, a question is posed by learned advocate for the petitioner that whether sickness of company/industrial unit is curable or incurable and so far as inquiry is concerned, once sickness of a industrial unit is declared and order is passed to that extent by BIFR such inquiry is over and complete. It is therefore, submitted that whatever procedure is provided under different sections where 'reference' is not referred at all, it is, only about just and suitable preparation of scheme and after preparation o