IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18963 of 2001 Between: M/S Ravi Rocks Private Ltd., Rep By Its Managing Director Sri K.S.Chaudhary Flat No.101 & 102, Ram's Enclave Opp.Allwyn Bhavan, Erragadda, Hyd-18. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Authority For Industrial & Financial Reconstructions (Ministry of Finance), 10th Floor, Jeevan Prakash, 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi- 110 001. 2 The Union of India Rep By Its Principal Secretary Ministry of Finnance, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more in the nature of the Writ of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Respondent No.1 herein in Appeal No.383 of 2000 dt.12.1.2001. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.V.KISHORE Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18963 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner is a private limited company established in the year 1988, initially with an object of manufacturing cut and polished granite monuments. It also established a 100% Export Oriented Unit. In the year 1991, the permission was modified enabling the petitioner to manufacture cut and polished granite slabs/tiles. The petitioner commenced its activity in the year 1994, but, became sick shortly thereafter, with an accumulated loss of about Rs.5 crores. The petitioner approached the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (Board) under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1895. Initially, the Board refused to number the application, on the ground that the number of employees engaged in the petitioner-company is less than 50 and that the activity does not fall within those specified in the schedule of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (for short ‘the IDR Act’). However, on an appeal preferred to the Registrar of the Board, the objections were overruled and the matter was taken up as case No.319 of 1998. The Board rejected the case of the petitioner, through its order, dated 22.08.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal No.383 of 2000 to the appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AIFR), the first respondent. The appeal was rejected through order, dated 12.01.2001. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard Sri Y.V.Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms.T.Balajayasree, learned counsel for the respondents. The case filed by the petitioner before the Board was rejected not on merits, but on preliminary grounds. The Act provides for rehabilitation schemes for certain categories of industries, which have become sick. It is only a company, which undertakes any activity mentioned in the schedule to the IDR Act and which engages not less than 50 persons, that is entitled to approach the Board for formation of scheme. Initially, the application presented by the petitioner was rejected, on the ground that these two requirements are not complied with. The Secretary of the Board passed an order for numbering the application. However, the observations made by him cannot be treated as final pronouncements. On the contrary in its order, dated 22.08.2000, the Board found that the petitioner does not comply with the two requirements mentioned above. The same view was upheld by the first respondent. The petitioner rests his claim under item No.34(7) of the Schedule appended to the IDR Act. It is not in dispute that the exclusive activity of the petitioner is only manufacturing of slabs or tiles from granite. Therefore, it becomes necessary to verify whether the claim of the petitioner fits into in Item 34(7). Item 34 in the Schedule reads as under: “Ceramics: 1. Fire Bricks. 2. Refractories. 3. Furnace lining bricks-acidic, basic and neutral. 4. China ware and pottery. 5. Sanitary ware. 6. Insulators. 7. Tiles. 8. Graphite Crucibles.” From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that the tiles mentioned in Item 7 of entry 34 are only those manufactured from ceramics. Even if any doubt arises, in this regard, a perusal of other items clears it. On application of principles of ejus dem generis, inescapable conclusion is that the tiles mentioned in item 7 of entry 34 are only those manufactured out of ceramics. By no stretch of imagination, the granite tiles can fit into this description. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner in presenting the application becomes the one without basis. It becomes unnecessary to deal with the question as to whether the petitioner engaged 50 workers or less than that. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.01.12.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ