- (1.) These matters are disposed of together. We need not elaborately mention the facts leading telling of these appeals and writ petitions. Suffice it to state that the validity of the U. P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (23 of 1971 was upheld by this court in Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of U. P. However, proceedings before the BIFR are pending to streamline the working of sick industry, namely, U. P. State Sugar Corporation. Shri H. N. Salve, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and writ petitioner in these cases, submitted that he had a discussion with his clients after the case was last adjourned. He suggested that the appellants are proposing to make a representation to the BIFR for consideration of their cases and so it was not necessary to argue the case on merits. In that view, we need not decide the case on merits. It would be open to the appellants to make representation to thebifr and it would be open to the BIFR to entertain the representation and dispose it of.
(2.) The appeals and writ petitions are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn a with the above observation. We make it clear that no issue of law or fact is left open in these cases.
(3.) Pending appeal, the appellant made an application in CMP No. 18628 of 1986 for directions as regards the possession of the bungalow occupied by the Director of the appellant-Company. When there was a conflicting claim as regards the possession, this court had called for a report from the District Judge, Bulandshahr. In furtherance thereof, the District Judge submitted the report. On consideration of the report by proceedings dated 9/1/1990 this court passed the order as under: "In this case, a report has been received from the learned District Judge as to the persons who are in possession of the property as on 9/05/1986. These are clearly prima facie findings in order to enable this court to pass an interim order. We direct that the status quo regarding the possession, as reported by the District Judge, will continue till the disposal of the case. We may make it clear that we do not pronounce regarding the title to the property in question and also regarding any question of mesne profits which the appellants may be entitled to. The appellants, if they so desire, may take the appropriate proceeding in the matter. ";