M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ. - (1.) -Heard Sri S. C. Tripathi for petitioners, Sri Avinash Mishra for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) PETITIONERS are challenging the impugned recovery and one of the grounds taken by the petitioner who are guarantors of the loan is that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act'). We are of the opinion that prima facie the Act is unconstitutional and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Act gives protection to the rich businessmen by staying the recovery against them whenever they bring their company before the B.I.F.R. The poor people of the country do not get any such protection against their recoveries. For example, if a poor peasant has taken a loan for seeds, fertiliser, etc. and if his crop fails, e.g., for lack of monsoons, recovery is issued against him and his land is sold in pursuance of the recovery and even his personal assets may be sold, but this will not be done with regard to companies because they can go to the B.I.F.R. and get protection of Section 22 of the Act. One can understand giving protection to the poor and weak people, but the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does just the reverse, by giving protection to the rich in respect of recoveries against them while no such protection is available to the poor people in respect of recoveries against them. This is prima facie, in our opinion, highly discriminatory against the poor people of the country.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the Union of India. LEARNED counsel for Union of India will intimate the learned Attorney General of India about this order. List on 12.8.2002 before us by which time parties may exchange the affidavit.;