IPISTEEL LIMITED Vs. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1, M/s. IPISTEEL Limited is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 set up in the year 1983 and it is a Mini Steel Plant in the State of Orissa promoted jointly by the Private Promoters and IPICOL. the opp. party, Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (in short 'CESCO') is a Limited Company which is the monopoly licensee for retail supply of electricity in the Central Zone of Orissa and carries on such supply on the strength of the licence granted by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short 'OERC') constituted under the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995. Petitioner No. 1 Company and Petitioner No. 2 its Managing Director, have approached this Court in the present Writ Application for issue of a Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. party to implement the revised Rehabilitation Scheme framed/approved by the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (in short 'BIFR') and to implement its order dated 5.11.2003 within a specified period.

(2.) IT is stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner M/s. IPISTEEL Ltd. accumulated a loss exceeding the net worth of the Company as on 31st March, 1990 and becoming sick approached to the BIFR under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short 'SICA') for adopting suitable measures for rehabilitation. The BIFR after being satisfied declared the Petitioner No. 1 Company as a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(o) of SICA. On 8.2.1991 the BIFR approved the Rehabilitation Scheme with reference to Petitioner No. 1 Company under Section 17(2) of SICA. The said approved Scheme could not be implemented and when the matter was reviewed on 28.7.1994 by the BIFR it appointed ICICI, the leading Financer, as the operating agency and directed Petitioner No. 1 Company to submit a draft Rehabilitation Scheme by 27.8.1994. Subsequently on 17.10.1995, the BlFR sanctioned the Rehabilitation Scheme of Petitioner No. 1 Company and circulated the same for being implemented by the concerned participating agencies. The said Scheme provided various reliefs and concessions from different agencies to be made available to Petitioner No. 1 Company from the cut off date, i.e., 30.6.1995.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that while implementing the Scheme the opp. party CESCO misinterpreted Clause 8 thereof and allowed the concession only during the break down and not for the entire period of rehabilitation as directed by the BIFR. When the matter was again reviewed by the BIFR in its meeting on 4.1.2001 further directions were issued to the participating agencies for giving the reliefs and concessions as per the order passed on that day. On such directions being given both the petitioner company and the CESCO submitted their representations to the operating agency i.e., ICICI who on the basis of the same submitted its report before the BIFR in its letter dated 30.11.2001. Going through the same the BIFR passed orders on 19.6.2003 communicated by its letter dated 20.6.2003 The petitioners allege that in spite of such orders the CESCO without implementing the same filed an application before the BIFR for modification/clarification/review of the order dated 27.10.1997 and subsequent order dated 19.6.2003.