LexM/S ASHOK PAPER MILLS KAMGAR UNION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MIS ASHOK PAPER MILLS KAMGAR UNION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MAY 1, 1997 (K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Industrial Development : C Rehabilitation of As/wk Paper Mills, Darbhanga, Bihar--Scheme for D E rehabilitation of the Mill approved by this Court on 6. 7.1996-Directions given to authorities concemed to implement the scheme--Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 32. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 11 of 1996. IN Writ Petition (C) No. 174 of 1991. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. R. Venkataramani and S.M. Garg for the Petitioner. V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, A.S. Nambiar, Harish Salve, Binu Tamta, D.S. Mehra, A.K. Ghose, M. Mishra, Sangeeta Manda!, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Ranjit Kumar, B.B Singh and E.C. Agarwala for F the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : The Scheme for rehabilitation of the Ashok Paper Mills situated in Darbhanga in the State of Bihar came to be finalised after a prolonged G negotiation and after extension of time given by this Court from time to time and it came to be approved by this Court on July 8, 1996. It is rather very unfortunate that when the implementation part has come up, some spokes have been put in attempting to re-start the functioning of the factory. Attempts are to undo the scheme which conduct is highly H reprehensible and cannot be approved of. Nonetheless, we are not pointing 1172 ASHOK PAPER MILLS KAMGAR UNION v. U.O.I. 1173 out the intention of any individual. The technicalities have been put up in A the usual bureaucratic manner lo see that the scheme is not put into operation. Some objections came to be raised by the IDBI for the grant of the loans for rehabilitation. We directed the Cabinet Secretary to look into the matter after hearing all the parties and sort out the problems. When Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, requested that it may be given permission to participate in the deliberations before the Cabinet Secretary and an opportunity of hearing may be given to them, we gave the directions accordingly. Now, a report has been filed by Cabinet Secretary stating that IDBI is backing out and is not prepared to give the finances. This would indicate the typical bureaucratic stickler to the letter of law sacrificing the spirit behind the directions so that the executive itself, without further necessity of judicial intervention, may solve the problem for the proper and true implementa- tion of the Scheme. B c We have heard Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsd appearing D for the IDBI, Shri V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India and Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Shri Harish Salve points out that certain technicalities are standing in their way due to the instructions issued by the RBI. They have not agreed in the meeting held on June 20, 1996 that the IDBI should agree to ;elease of the loans on the collateral security E being given by the promoters to the extent of Rs. 10 crores. Now affidavit has been filed by Mohd. Zakir who participated in the meeting on behalf of IDBI; obviously, he is now trying to back out from the acceptance to the proposal he agreed in the meeting. In fact, the Industry Secretary in his letter has categorically pointed out consensus in that behalf reached on F June 20, 1996. We have little doubt to accept the correctness of the statement made by the Industry Secretary. Due to the change in the circumstances, viz., Mr. R.P. Chhabra having taken over the charge as Chief General Manager, the IDBI seems to have raised the objections to the implementation of the Scheme. Mr. Chhabra is present in Court. We have heard Mr. Chhabra in person. We are not satisfied with his explana- G tion. We think that the attitude of the IDBI is reprehensible and cannot be condoned. The Financial Institution when it is called upon to build up India as industrial country among world nations, it is under duty to ensure industrial growth of the country. When Scheme framed was approved by this Court, it is but its duty to see that the same is implemented. It is H 1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R. A unfortunate that such an attempt has not been made by the IDBI, instead of doing it, it has been a self help to the persons managing etc. Therefore, we direct that all the per
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.