Sanjay Yadav, J.

1. Shri Satish Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

3. Many a grounds have been raised by the Petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein the challenge is to an order dated November 16, 2009, whereby in a proceeding drawn under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan Shodhya Rashion Ki Vasuli Adhiniyam, 1987, at the instance of Respondent No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 25,00,000 along with interest Rs. 37,68,033 total Rs. 62,68,033 the Naib Tahsildar, Bairagarh, Bhopal turned down the objection raised by the Petitioner for stay of proceedings in lieu of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (referred to as "the SICA, 1985").

4. The Petitioner, however, has confined its challenge only to the extent that the proceedings under Adhiniyam 1987 to remain suspended till enquiry is pending under the SICA, 1985 as per Section of the SICA, 1985.

5. The facts relevant for the present are that financial assistance of Rs. 25 lakhs was extended by the Respondent to the Petitioner to set up its industrial unit for manufacturing of dye inter