D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The order dated 23 -2 -2001 passed by the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction in Case No. 501 /2000 of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. has since been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the same order has been passed in violation of sub -paragraph (6) of Regulation 20 of BIFR Regulations, 1987 without giving any hearing to the petitioners as well as the other respondents Union. Relying on the order dated 30 -8 -2000, Mr, Subodh Ukil, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that Form AA which is the foundation for the procedure was not furnished to the Union which was directed to be furnished by the said order dated 30 -8 -2000 pursuant to which the petitioners had submitted its written statement and representation. Therefore, by reason of sub -paragraph (6) of Regulation 20, it was incumbent on the Board to give hearing to the petitioners as well as the other Unions. Instead of doing so, the Board had passed an order without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the other Unions though in the said order dated 30 -8 -2000 it was pointed out that there would be a next hearing. According to him, hearing was contemplated and the expression 'further hearing may be given or may not be given' becomes superseded. He further contends that even then the Board has not considered the statement submitted by the petitioners by making representation in terms of the order dated 30 -8 -2000. Therefore, the order dated 23 -2 -2001 should be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the Board for taking fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the other Unions.
(2.) Mr. Darsan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 15 supports Mr. Ukil and contends that there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was ever given after the order dated 30 -8 -2000 was passed and before passing the impugned order dated 23 -2 -2001 despite such opportunity of hearing being mandatory in terms of sub -paragraph (6) of regulation 20 of BIFR Regulations, 1987. Therefore, the said order dated 23 -2 -2001 should be set aside.
(3.) Mr. Debasish Kundu, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 17 had pointed out that in the order dated 23 -2 -2001 the Board has not considered the statement made by or on behalf of the Union or written statement made. The question is a serious one and should not have been dealt with in the cursory manner as has been made by the said order. Therefore, the order dated 23 -2 -2001 should be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Board for passing fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the Unions.;