IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16733 of 2009 1. M/S PRAKASH ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD.,A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956, S/O LATE SATYANARAYAN SARAOGI HAVING ITS FACTORY AT INDUSTRIAL AREA, TEKUNA FARM ON BODH GAYA ROAD ,GAYA , THROUGH ONE OF IT'S DIRECTOR SRI RAMAN PRAKASH SARAOGI RESIDENT OF 6, K.P. ROAD, GAYA Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT VIDYUT BHAWAN , BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE CHAIRMAN , BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER- CUM -CHIEF ENGINEER MAGADH AREA ELECTRICITYN BOARD, MAGADH ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, GAYA 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES- CUM- CHAIRMAN, THE APEX BODY FOR SSI UNITS, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES GOVERNEMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE BIHAR INDUSTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR , BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 8. THE AREA INCHARGE , INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GAYA ----------- 2/ 06/12/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State, Bihar State Electricity Board and for BIADA. The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to be considered for grant of certain benefits under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Policy) on the plea that it fulfils the criteria for being declared a sick industrial unit, entitled to benefits under the policy. The policy is composite in nature. Clause-12 of the same contains provision for monitoring and review of the policy by a Committee to be constituted under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Industries, Director, of - 2 - Industries, Director, Technical Development, a representative each of the Commercial Taxes Department, the State Electricity Board (wherever necessary), as well as, the concerned Managing Director of the BIADA as its members. Since the claims involve interpretation of the industrial policy, the matter first has to be considered by the concerned Committee who shall be better aware of the true intent, scope, purpose and purport of the policy. It is only after they apply their mind as experts, the question of judicial review of their orders may or may not arise. At this stage, in the garb of exercise of powers of judicial review, the Court cannot take over the role of the Expert Committee for monitoring and review of the policy. If the petitioner files an application before the Chairman of the Committee, the Secretary, Industries who is the Chairman of the Committee, shall call a meeting of the Committee and consider the claims of the petitioner in accordance with law and dispose it by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order before the Secretary. The counter affidavit filed before this Court is by the Deputy Director, Industries and not on behalf of - 3 - the Committee. It shall therefore have no application or relevance at the time of such fresh consideration by the Committee, unless the Committee by a reasoned discussion as already considered the case of the petitioner and rejected it as suggested by learned State Counsel from paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit. If the rejection was behind the back of the petitioner without any opportunity to him, or the reasoned order of rejection has not been communicated, the Committee shall be obliged to proceed in the manner as directed herein. Any grievance of the petitioner against the BIADA obviously can be raised before the Committee of which the Managing Director of the Authority is also a member. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)