The order of the BIFR is appealable under section 25 of SICA and the writ application is not entertainable. The jurisdiction of the BIFR to give direction to the Authority providing services to the Sick Industry is broad and in line with the legislative intent.

JUDGMENT

D Dash, J. - The Petitioner-Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Limited Company (TPCODL) has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order by quashing the letter dated 05.01.2009 issued by the Opposite Party No.1-Paradeep Phosphates Limited (PPL) a wholly public sector undertaking to the extent that it affects the Petitioner.

It is pertinent to state here that the Central Electricity Supply Utility Odisha (CESU) created in pursuance to a Scheme framed by the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) in accordance with Section 26 of Section 22 of the Electricity Act engaged in the business of retail supply of electricity in the Central Zone of Odisha and was the original writ-Petitioner.

In view of the order of vesting dated 26th may, 2020 passed by the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC), the TPCODL (present Petitioner) has taken over the powers, assets, managements and liabilities subject to the limitations from the CESU for the purpose of distribution of electricity in the area in the State of Odisha in which CESU was carrying out all said activities.

By order dated 4.12.2020 passed by this Court in I.A. No.13986 of 2020, the TPCODL has come to stand as the Petitioner and has been pursuing the same.

2. Facts as are necessary for the purpose are as under:-

(a) The Opposite Party No.1 (PPL), a wholly owned Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India, being a Sick Industrial Undertaking made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short, 'the BIFR') as established under section-4 of the said Act for determination of the measures which shall be adopted with respect to the Company. The BIFR then undertook necessary enquiry under section 16 of the SICA. Having conducted the enquiry as contemplated under the said provision arrived at a satisfaction that the Company has become a Sick Industrial Company in terms of clause (o) of the sub-section 1 of section 3 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (for short, hereinafter, referred to as 'the SICA') and then considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and hearing all concerned having come to conclude that the revival of the Company (PPL) with the potential for generation of profit and providing employment of 923 persons should not be hampered, prepared and sanctioned the Scheme as under section-18 of the SICA.

Sub-item-1 of item no.20 of the said sanctioned Scheme under the heading of "Reliefs and Concessions from Various Other Agencies and Concerns" is the subject matter of the present proceeding. The relevant portions are reproduced hereunder:-

"20. The Reliefs and Concessions and Various Agencies and Concerns.

xx xx xx

(i) From the State Government of Orissa Sales Tax

(a) xx xx

(b) xx xx

Electricity

(c) To exempt the Company from the levy of 20 paise per unit on self-generation of electricity;

(d) To exempt the Company from the charge of "Minimum Demand Charges" in case of under utilization of contract - load for a period of seven years from the cut-off date.

General

(e) xx xx xx

(f) xx xx xx

(g) xx xx xx"

The Petitioner for filing this writ application have first of all assigned the reasons for not resorting to the alternative remedy by carrying an Appeal against the order passed and the Scheme sanctioned by the BIFR so far as it affects it as provided under section 25 of the SICA.

The first grounds taken in support of the same is that the order of the BIFR followed by the Scheme as sanctioned, particularly as to the reliefs and concessions with which the Petitioner is concerned which have been impugned in this writ application is without jurisdiction and has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and otherwise void and nonest in the eye of law. Next, it is stated that the BIFR lacks jurisdiction to sanction the Scheme in passing the directions providing relief or concessions against the Petitioner so a