http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: M/S ASHOK PAPER MILLS KAMGAR UNION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.Saghir Ahmad               Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik R. Venkataramani and S.M. Garg, Advs. for the Petitioner V.R. Reddy,  Additional  Solicitor  General,  A.S.  Nambiar, Harish Salve,  Sr, Advs.,  Ms. Binu  Tamta, D.S. Mehra, A.K. Ghose,   M. Mishra,  Ms. Sangeeta  Mandal,  Chandra  Bhushan Prasad, Ranjit  Kumar, B.B. Singh, E.C. Agarwala, Advs. with them for the Respondents.                          O R D E R      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 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 reprehensible and cannot be approved of.   Nonetheless, we  are not pointing out the intention of any individual.   The technicalities have been put up in the usual bureaucratic  manner to 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 beaurocratic  sickler to the letter of law sacrificing the spirit behind  the direction so that the executive itself,   without  further necessity  of  judicial intervention, may solve the problem, for the proper and true implementation of the Scheme.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    We have  heard Mr. Harish salve, learned senior counsel appearing 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 release  of the  loans on  the collateral  security 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  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 explanation.  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 word 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 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 persons and institutions   concerned    should   participate    in   the implementation   concerned   should   participate   in   the implementation of the scheme and Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance,  Government of  India is directed to ensure that the  legal   conditions  are   fulfilled  and  the  mill  is rehabilitated and  both, Phase-I  and Phase II of the Scheme are given  effect to.  The arrears to workmen would be taken care by  the Committee during the process of implementation. The application is accordingly ordered.      It is  hereby  directed  that  the  authorities  should ensure  the   implementation  of   the    scheme  framed  by Government   of India and approved by this Court.  If anyone stands in  the way  by surreptitious  technicalities in  the implementation of  the Scheme,  it is hereby made clear that such technicalities  would not  stand  in  the  way  of  the implementation of  the scheme and the same will be seriously dealt with.