IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7188 of 2002 1. BIHAR RAJYA CHINI UDYOG KAMGAR UNION (CITU) 2. BAGAHA CHINI MILL SHRAMIK SANGH 3. THE BAGAHA CHINI MILL KARAMCHARI PANCYAYAT BAGAHA 4. HARIHAR PANDEY, BAGAHA HMP SUGAR FACTORY, NARAIPUR 5. CHANDRADEO SINGH, NARAIPUR 6. AWADH NARESH SINGH, BAGAHA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR 2. SECY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, BIHAR 3. THE IDC, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR 4. THE SECY, DEPARTMENT OF SUGAR CANE DEV, GOVT. OF BIHAR 5. THE CANE COMMISSIONER, BIHAR 6. THE UNION OF INDIAN 7. THE CHIEF DIRECTOR (SUGAR), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 8. THE BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION 9. KTHE UCO BANK 10. THE INDIAN BANK 11. M/S HMP SUGARS LIMITED 12. THE IFCI, TFCI TOWER 13. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 14. THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (RECOVERY), N DELHI. ----------- 12 17.11.2009. The Indian Bank, respondent no. 10 prays for time to file further counter affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the State submit that if respondent no.10 has any grievance, he can file a separate writ petition for its redressal. He cannot agitate his grievance in the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner. They further submit that respondent no.10 ought to have filed counter affidavit in time, if he wanted to file any further counter affidavit. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to grant further time to respondent no.10 for filing counter affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 26.4.2002, passed by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), annexure 17, whereby it has recommended for winding up of petitioner’s Company. While hearing the matter in hand, this Court vide order dated 24.7.2002 observed as follows:- - 2 - The Advocate General stated that having regard to the nature of the controversy and the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in this case, he would like that the petitioners’ grievances are in substance considered by the State Government. He would find out from the State Government whether it would be in the larger interest of the State to try to save this unit from being allowed go into winding up and will taken a stand in court only after ascertaining the views of the State Government on the larger issues involved in this case. On the next date of hearing i.e. 21.8.2002, the Advocate General, Bihar submitted that the State Government is absolutely not in a position to take over and run the sick sugar mill of HMP Sugar Limited. It is also not in a position to extend any financial assistance to draw out the unit from its present state, of financial sickness. Further in order dated 28.8.2002 it has been observed that Mr. Shahi, SCCG agreed that in the meanwhile this Court may direct that in case, no winding up proceeding has already commenced in pursuance of the order dated 26.4.2002 passed by the BIFR, as contained in annexure 17 to the writ petition, no proceeding for the winding up of M/S HMP Sugar Limited, Bagaha, West Champaran may be initiated till further orders. This court on 9.9.2002 issued notice to respondent numbers 9, 10 and 11. Supplementary counter affidavit dated 19.5.2009 has been filed by Cane commissioner, Bihar respondent no.5 stating therein that after change of old management of HMP Sugar Ltd., Bagaha (Tirupati Sugar Ltd) in September, 2008, the new management has taken over and has run the crushing season 2008-09 successfully. In para 7 thereof it has been stated that the new management of Tirupati Sugar Limited is economically sound and has the capacity to pay the dues and no prolonged installment is required for it to clear the dues. In para 8 of the - 3 - counter affidavit it has been stated that this Sugar mill has been instructed to clear all the dues relating to cane price, purchase tax, ZDC commission and Government loan in two installments by June, 2009, whereas in para 9 it has been given that the Company has cleared the old cane price dues of Rs. 2,28 crores up to 7.4.2009. The new management, respondent no. 11 has also filed counter affidavit dated 18.5.2009. In para 3 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the present management after taking over the sick sugar mill, has inducted share application money of Rs. 16.23 crores for utilizing towards full and final settlement of the dues of the Indian Bank upon payment of Rs. 12.23 crores and a further amount of Rs. 4 crores has also been paid to the cane growers. The main grievance of respondent no. 10 is that the Sugar mill still owes a substantial portion of its dues. In case, the bank believes that the Sugar mill in question has not returned its dues, it can also take recourse to modes available under the law. In view of counter affidavit filed by the Cane commissioner, respondent no.5 in which he has stated that the Sugar mill is capable of meeting its liabilities as it has cleared quite a good sum of its dues, this Court quashes order dated 26.4.2002 issued by the BIFR contained in annexure 17 recommending liquidation of the Sugar mill. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)