IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8211 of 2006(C) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ M/S. STEEL COMPLEX LTD., POST BOX NO.42, FEROKE-673 631, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.K. UNNEENKUTTY. BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SMT.LINDA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO INDUSTRIES DEPARTMESNT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST.COMMISSIONER, K VAT, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, JAWAHAR NAGAR, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE. 3. SECRETARY TO TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8211 OF 2006 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers: (i) Call for the entire records relating to the above case. (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext-P13 to P20 and Ext-P22 notices, as the same are highly illegal, wrong and unauthorised. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent not to initiate any coercive recovery steps against the petitioner- company, till a final decision is taken by the Government/BIFR regarding the revised revival scheme, relating to the petitioner-company, pending before the Government/BIFR. (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or ah other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext-P12 representation within a stipulated period.” 2. When the writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 21.3.2006, the third respondent was directed to file a statement/counter affidavit. Thereafter it came up for consideration again on 7.4.2006. Referring to the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in Aluminum Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLT 889) it was observed that the prayer of the petitioner to have the said WPC. No.8211/06 2 decision reconsidered was obviously not possible by the learned single Judge and accordingly, the prayer of interim stay was rejected. The matter still remains to be admitted. 3. Being aggrieved of the rejection of the prayer for interim order, the matter was taken up in appeal by the petitioner, by filing W.A. No.822 of 2006. It is stated that an interim stay was granted therein as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, in the meanwhile, the law declared by this Court in Aluminum Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLT 889) was doubted in W.A. No.1892 of 2005 and the matter was referred for consideration by the Larger Bench as per the reference order dated 21.10.2005. The issue in similar cases were considered by the Full Bench of this Court, along with W.A. No.822 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner and they were disposed of as per the common verdict dated 1.8.2006, holding that, once the case is registered by the BIFR and enquiry is commenced, the bar under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 comes into play and that, once the 'Scheme' is framed under Section 17 of the Act, then, the bar under Section 22 will stand confined to the terms of the Scheme alone. 4. Referring to the mandate given by the Full Bench of this Court as above, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the benefit of Ext.P1 Scheme, which WPC. No.8211/06 3 was framed pursuant to the proceedings before the BIFR. Referring to 'Clause 5' of Para '4.4' of Ext.P1 Scheme, the learned Government Pleader submits that the relief provided under the scheme is only to defer the sales tax arrears up to 31.12.1993 (116 lakhs) interest free and to make available in 'four' years from 1999-2000. It is pointed out that the steps being pursued against the petitioner are only from the year 2005 and this being the position, it is clearly outside the purview of Ext.P1 Scheme and hence no interference is warranted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the passing of order dated 1.8.2006 by the Full Bench in the relevant cases including WA No.822 of 2006 filed by the petitioner, Writ Appeal 822 of 2006 was posted again before the Division Bench. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had taken up the matter before the Government and necessary reliefs were extended from the part of the Government, which was brought to the notice of the Division Bench and in the said circumstance, the said writ appeal was disposed of, in the following terms; “It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the matter has become infructuous in view of the fact that the Government has already granted stay in his favour. Hence, the writ appeal is closed as infructuous.” 6. It is not revealed whether the matter is still pending before the Government or the liability has been written off or being proceeded further. Taking note of the declaration of law by the Full Bench as above and also WPC. No.8211/06 4 in view of the final verdict passed by the Division Bench in W.A No.822 of 2006, nothing further remains to be considered in this writ petition. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the remedies, if any, granted by the Government, in accordance with law. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) vps WPC. No.8211/06 5 WPC. No.8211/06 6