ISPAT INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners seek leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment dated February 3, 2000 of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court.

(2.) First petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of steel. Second petitioner is a share-holder of the first petitioner and is also a director. First petitioner established its factory for production of steel in 1998. The petitioners in the writ petition filed in the High Court claimed the following reliefs: - "a) A declaration do issue declaring that the petitioners and similarly placed other units in the steel industry are eligible and entitled to avail of financial assistance from the Steel Development Fund; b) Declaration do issue declaring that granting of financial assistance and/or loans out of the Steel Development Fund, to the fifth respondent, TISCO and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. , to the exclusion of the petitioners and similarly placed other units in the steel industry is arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional, illegal and bad in law; c) A Writ of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents not to convert the loans, granted to the fifth respondents and others out of the Steel Development Fund, into equity share capital in any manner whatsoever; d) A Writ and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents to grant financial assistance and/or loans to the petitioners out of the said Steel Development Fund; e) A Writ and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the concerned respondents and each of them to forthwith recover the loans granted by them to the fifth respondent, TISCO and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. so that such funds, upon realisation may be utilised for the new projects of the petitioner company and similarly situated other new entrants in the steel industry; f) Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the concerned respondents and each of them, their men, servants and agents, from converting any part of the loans and/or interest owned by the fifth respondent, TISCO and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. into equity share capital in any manner whatsover and also from granting any further loan or financial assistance, directly or indirectly, to the said fifth respondent, TISCO and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd; g) A Writ of Certiorari do issue directing the concerned respondents and each of them to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court all records pertaining to the decision of conversion of loans into equity, so far as the fifth respondent is concerned and decision for renewal of loans for a long period at a nominal rate of interest so far as TISCO is concerned so that such purported decisions and/or proposals may be quashed and/or set aside and conscionable justice may be done; h) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers above; i) An injunction do issue restraining of the concerned respondents and each of them, their servants and agents from converting the loans granted to the fifth respondent and/or TISCO or Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. into equity share capital and also from granting any further intention or renewal of the loans granted to the said respondent may manner whatsoever: j) An order do issue directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to forthwith take steps for (illegible) of the outstanding (illegible) to the fifth respondent and others with interest accrued thereon and not to grant any renewal of the outstanding loans or any fresh loans without first considering the case of the petitioners; k) Ad interim order in terms of prayers above; I) Cost of and incident to this application be borne and paid by the respondent; m) Such further order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. "

(3.) In effect the petitioners want restraint on the Union of India and the Joint Plant Committee from utilisation of the Steel Development Fund for the sole benefit of SAIL and TISCO. Learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated August 5, 1999 dismissed the writ petition and imposed cost of Rs. 10,000. 00 on the petitioner in favour of each of the appearing respondents intervening in the proceedings. Aggrieved petitioners filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which, as noted above, was dismissed by judgment dated February 3, 2000 by concluding: -