THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2022 of 2008 Between: Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited. .. PETITIONER and The District Collector and another. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2022 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company has become sick industry and against the order of Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short “BIFR”) to wind up the company, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short “AAIFR”) and the appeal proceedings are pending before it. Therefore, the winding up proceedings have been adjourned from time to time. It is further stated that revival of the petitioner company is under active consideration of group of Ministers, Government of India. To support revival of the petitioner company, the Chief Secretary of Andhra Pradesh has agreed to waive all its outstanding dues in view of providing about 150 acres of the land in the campus of the petitioner company to NIPER, Hyderabad, vide letter No.497/IFR.A1/03, dated 11-05-2007. The inauguration of NIPER, Hyderabad, has been done on 19-10-2007 in the existing R & D Centre at Hyderabad and accordingly, the petitioner company has provided the existing R & D Centre and the Field Hostel at its campus to NIPER. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings No.LCI/134/2008, dated 27-01-2008, in resuming the land admeasuring Ac.891-38 gts situated at Balanagar and Qutbullapur Mandals, Ranga Reddy District, which was alienated to the petitioner company. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal along with stay application before the 2nd respondent on 29-01-2008. But, so far, neither stay application nor appeal has been disposed of. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there was no alienation of the land conveyed to the petitioner company, as per the Conveyance Deed, dated 08-02-1994, and in the event of revival of the company, the resumption of the land is detrimental to the employees of the petitioner company as well as public. I am of the opinion that when appeal has been filed, to protect the interest of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for granting stay. If no stay is granted, the appeal provision itself becomes nugatory and useless and, therefore, it may not be just and proper to resume the land in question, pending disposal of the appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal filed against the order of the 1st respondent in proceedings No.LC1/134/2008, dated 27-01-2008, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law. Pending disposal of the appeal, there shall be stay of operation of the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 05-02-2008 Prv