M/S ASHOK PAPER MILLS KAMGAR UNIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A              MIS ASHOK PAPER MILLS KAMGAR UNION
                                 v.
                      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                    MAY 1, 1997

B               (K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
                          G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

          Industrial Development :

C         Rehabilitation of As/wk Paper Mills, Darbhanga, Bihar--Scheme for
    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.
D
                                          IN

          Writ Petition (C) No. 174 of 1991.

          Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
E
          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
                                                                                 B
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     c
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.

       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 persons and institutions 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 condi-
    tions are fulfilled and the mill is rehabilitated and both, Phase-I 'and
B   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 implemen-
C   tation of the Scheme framed by Government of India and approved by this
    Court. If a~yone stands in the way by surreptitious technicalities in the
    implementation of the Scheme, it is hereby made clear that su1:h tech-
    nicalities would not stand in the way of the implementation of the Scheme
    and the same will be seriously dealt with.

    R.P.                                                    Petition disposed of.