- (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to implement the rehabilitation scheme, dated 10.1.2007 (P-5), which has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for brevity, 'BIFR'). The petitioner Company has also challenged order dated 13.9.2000 (P-1), passed by the Assessing Authority for Cess-cum-Member Secretary, Haryana State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, under Section 11 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (for brevity, 'the Cess Act') raising the demand of Rs. 8,16,851/- on account of Water Cess payable by the petitioner, imposing the penalty of equivalent amount as well as interest of Rs. 7,49,418/-, total of which comes to Rs. 23,82,120/-. The order dated 15.3.2011 (P-4), passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner Company under Section 13 of the Cess Act against the order dated 13.9.2000, has also been challenged. Still further, the communication dated 20.4.2010 (P-8) has also been challenged whereby it has been asked to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 23,83,120/- before the sale of surplus assets of the petitioner Company and to avoid action under the Cess Act.
(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of processing of textiles, having its processing unit at Faridabad. Due to recession in the international market, it started incurring losses and in the year 1996 an application under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was filed before the Specified Authority-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Haryana, seeking permission to retrench surplus 991 workmen out of 2163 workmen, which was allowed. Another application under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) act, 1985 (for brevity, 'SICA') was filed before the BIFR. On 4.10.1996, the petitioner Company was declared as a sick industrial company in terms of Section 3(1)(o) of SICA.
(3.) It has been claimed that despite the complete lock out in the factory and the fact that w.e.f. 12.9.1996 the workers' union took forceful possession of the plant, machinery and office of the petitioner Company, it continued to pay water cess from 1993 to 1996 at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- on actual consumption basis. However, on 13.9.2000, the Assessing Authority of the respondent Haryana State Pollution Control Board-respondent No. 2, exercising the powers under Sections 10 and 11 of the Cess Act, raised the total demand of Rs. 23,83,120/-, which includes Water Cess, penalty and interest (P-1). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner Company filed an appeal on 11.10.2000 under Section 13 of the Cess Act, for setting aside the order dated 13.9.2000. It was specifically highlighted in the appeal that since the petitioner Company has been declared as a sick company by the BIFR on 4.10.1996, therefore, as per Section 22 of the SICA no recovery could be effected from it without seeking prior permission from BIFR. It was further stated that even the assets of the Company could not be disposed of or alienated without the permission of the BIFR (P-2). The Appellate Authority, however, dismissed the appeal on merit, vide order dated 15.3.2001 (P-4). With regard to the fact that the matter was pending before BIFR and that the petitioner Company has been declared as a sick company, the Appellate Authority in the concluding para of its order made the following observations:- " However, the point raised by the company, that the dues are not recoverable after their cases has been registered with BIFR, may be examined by the Assessing Authority. The appellant also raised the issue, that when the case is registered with BIFR, it is wrong to impose penalty or charge interest and also the lodge proceedings under Land revenue Act for recovery of dues. The Assessing Authority will look into the matters at his own level and take suitable action. The appeal does not lie in this case.";