JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:---By this petition filed under Article. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Bank of Baroda-the respondent No. 1-to take petitioner No. 1 Company into the nursing/rehabilitation programme for viable sick units in accordance with the guidelines and directions contained in the Circular dated Nov. 5, 1985 issued by the Reserve Bank of India.To appreciate the claim of the petitioners, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts which led to the filing of the present petition. The petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited company and carries on business of manufacturing dyes, dyes intermediates and auxiliaries at its two plants situated at Ambarnath and Tarapore. Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Company. The respondent No. 1-Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 7 Andhra Bank and respondent No. 8-Corporation Bank are Nationalised Banks and had advanced large amounts to the petitioner from time to time. The petitioner No. 1 Company was incorporated in the year 1960 and enjoyed credit facilities from the inception from Bank of Baroda. The petitioner No. 1 Company has employed about 500 workmen. The production capacity at Ambarnath is 720 metric tonnes per annum and that at Tarapore is 300 metric tonnes per annum and the products manufactured by the petitioners are principally used in the textile industry. Between April and June 1980, the Company suspended its work and in the year 1980-81, the Company sufferred considerable losses. The labourers went on strike for a period of eight months in the year 1981-82 and ultimately on March 5, 1983, the Company was declared as a sick unit. From the year 1980 onwards, the Company has been continuously incurring losses.The sickness of the Company has been attributed by the petitioners mainly to the textile strike in Bombay, labour strike in the Company, competition from small scale units enjoying special excise reliefs and also lack of supply of adequate working capital in time. On Oct. 13, 1983, the petitioner No. 1 Company was declared as a Relief Undertaking under the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 by the Government of Maharashtra. 2. The petitioner No. 1 Company had a Cash Credit account in addition to the working capital term loan account with the Bank of Baroda and availed of the facilities to the extent of Rs. 4 crores. 2. The petitioner No. 1 Company had a Cash Credit account in addition to the working capital term loan account with the Bank of Baroda and availed of the facilities to the extent of Rs. 4 crores. The Company after being declared as a sick unit, approached Bank of Baroda for more financial assistance and the Bank noticed that the Company had continuously incurred losses from the year 1980-81 onwards and the irregularities in the account had increased. As on June 30, 1983, the total excess withdrawals and the interest there on came to about Rs. 250 lakhs. The Bank of Baroda, therefore, thought it wise to secure a viability report about the petitioner No. 1 Company from one Gami Consultants on July 22, 1983. Gami Consultants made a preliminary report on September 20, 1983 and in pursuance of that report, the petitioner Company submitted an application to the Bank under the Credit Authorised Scheme for additional funds of Rs. 265 lakhs. The Bank decided to regularise the irregularity in respect of an amount of Rs. 250 lakhs by converting the same into a working capital term loan in addition to the existing working capital term loan of Rs. 30 lakhs. Between March 22, 1984 and August 1984 Bank of Baroda entered into correspondence with Reserve Bank of India seeking approval for enhancement of working capital. The Reserve Bank of India initialy sanctioned the amount which was less than sought by Bank of Baroda, but after follow up, ultimately, the Reserve Bank of India gave authorisation in January 1985 for working capital of Rs. 307 lakhs and working Capital Term Loan of Rs. 360 lakhs. The Reserve Bank of India gave authorisation on condition that no further irregularity is developed in the account either by debit of interest or by allowing excess withdrawals. The Reserve Bank of India gave authorisation only for a period of one year. In January 1985, Gami Consultants made their final report about the viability of petitioner No. 1 Company and the report was favourable to petitioner No. 1 Company. In July 1985, the General Manager of Bank of Baroda advised the financial expert Shri Mody who is an officer of the Bank, to study the report and make a note. In January 1985, Gami Consultants made their final report about the viability of petitioner No. 1 Company and the report was favourable to petitioner No. 1 Company. In July 1985, the General Manager of Bank of Baroda advised the financial expert Shri Mody who is an officer of the Bank, to study the report and make a note. Shri Mody forwarded his note on August 3, 1985 pointing out that the report made by Gami Consultants was too optimistic and it is unlikely that the company would be rescued by pouring of more funds by the Banks and financial institutions. On August 26, 1985, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation which had advanced Rs. 12.71 lakhs to petitioner No. 1 Company served notice of recovery of the balance. 3. On Novemer 5, 1985, the Reserve Bank of India issued Circular to Scheduled Commercial Banks prescribing parameters for provision of reliefs/concessions by Banks under rehabilitation packages evolved for sick units considered as potentially viable. The Circular, inter alia, recites that in absence of guidelines regarding the concept of viability as well as the extent of reliefs/concessions which could be extended by the Banks, much time is lost in arriving at mutually acceptable packages and the packages are drawn up on an ad hoc basis resulting into disparities between one case and another and inequitable sharing of sacrifices amongst the concerned agencies. Some uniformity in the matter of concession extended within a broad framework was felt essential. The Circular also sounds warning that availability of large concessions from the Banks and term lending institutions has often tempted the borrowers to demand excessive concessions with practically no contribution on their part in the rehabilitation measures. The Circular then sets out that viability on a commercial basis should be the main criterion for undertaking the rehabilitation of a sick unit. The Circular then sets out that viability on a commercial basis should be the main criterion for undertaking the rehabilitation of a sick unit. The viability is defined as under : "A unit may be regarded as viable if it would be in a position, after implementing a relief package spread over a period not exceeding seven years from the commencement of the package from Banks, financial institutions, Government (Central/State) Government agencies, shareholders, suppliers of goods and services and other creditors, as may be necessary, to continue to service its repayment obligations as agreed upon including those forming part of the package, without the help of the concessions after the aforesaid period the repayment period for restructured debts should not exceed ten years from the date of implementation of the package." The Circular also sets out that the details of packages evolved should be reported to the Reserve Bank where the units enjoy working capital of Rs. 1 crore and above from the Banking system. It further prescribes that in the case of borrowers coming under the purview of the Credit Authorisation Scheme, enhancements in the credit limits sanctioned by the Banks should be referred to the Reserve Bank for prior authorisation. The Reserve Bank of India is also required to be associated in the joint meetings convened for finalising the packages. The circular makes it clear that it should be ensured that the burden of relief and concessions is not borne by the Banks and term lending institutions alone but is shared in an equitable manner by the various agencies interested in the revival of the units. In pursuance of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, on Dec. 26, 1985, Bank of Baroda advised petitioner No. 1 Company to submit fresh proposals to establish that the company is a viable Unit in accordance with the guidelines. On Dec. 30, 1985, petitioner No.1 Company furnished the requisite details and thereafter on Jan. 22, 1986, a joint meeting of the Officers of the Bank and the financial institutions and the Reserve Bank was held. The summary of the decisions reached in the meeting was as under :- (a) The respondent No. 3 Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India will undertake a detailed viability study and in case the report is favourable then may consider granting of loan to provide margin money for the additional working capital of Rs. The summary of the decisions reached in the meeting was as under :- (a) The respondent No. 3 Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India will undertake a detailed viability study and in case the report is favourable then may consider granting of loan to provide margin money for the additional working capital of Rs. 150 lakhs by Bank of Baroda, provided the promoters contribute at least 20% thereof '. (b) Consortium consisting of three Nationalised Banks and the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Maharashtra State Financial Corporation agreed to consider the following package to the Company, subject to approval of the higher authority of respective Bank/financial institution : (i) Bank of Baroda will assess the working capital requirements of the Company on receipt of the complete data from the Company. (ii) Interest on cash credit and loans will be funded from April 1, 1980 to June 30, 1986 which will bear interest at 10% per annum. (iii) Irregular portion in the Cash Credit Account with Bank of Baroda will be funded which will bear interest at 13.5% per annum, and (iv) Banks and Financial Institutions will re-schedule repayment of loans and funded interest which shall be repaid within a period of seven years with one year moratorium. In pursuance of the tentative decision reached in this meeting, Bank of Baroda advised the Company on February 25, 1986, to furnish details about the working of the Company. On April 17, 1986, Bank of Baroda informed the Government of Maharashtra to continue to treat the petitioner No. 1 Company as Relief Undertaking as the Bank was considering nursing the Unit. In the meanwhile, Bank of Baroda examined the viability report forwarded by Gami Consultants and the note prepared by Shri Mody. Thereafter, the General Manager prepared his own note on May 2, 1986 and felt that the petitioner No. 1 Company was not a viable Unit and it would not be advisable to nurse such Unit as it would not be able to repay the loan within the framework of the guidelines laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. The note prepared by the General Manager was approved by the Managing Director and the Chairman and the decision was subsequently confirmed by the Board of Directors in the meeting dated May 8, 1986. The note prepared by the General Manager was approved by the Managing Director and the Chairman and the decision was subsequently confirmed by the Board of Directors in the meeting dated May 8, 1986. The Board decided to recall the advances made to the Company and, accordingly, on May 14, 1986, Bank of Baroda served notice on the petitioners to repay the amount. The petitioner thereupon filed the present petition on May 16, 1986 and the petition was admitted on May 21, 1986 and certain interim orders were passed. Thereafter on June 16, 1986, Bank of Baroda instituted suit in this Court against petitioner No. 1 Company for recovery of an amount of Rs. 868.25 Lakhs inclusive of interest calculated upto May 31, 1986. 4. Shri Chagla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India have statutory sanction and as such Nationalised Banks are bound to observe and implement the same. It was contended that the Circular was issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the norms laid down therein are best evidence of what is in public interest. Shri Chagla urges that the grant of advantage under the Circular or refusal by the Nationalised Bank must satisfy the test of reasonableness and must be in the public interest. It was urged that the declaration of petitioner No. 1 Company as Relief Undertaking by the Government of Maharashtra is to ensure continuous working of the Unit and the Bank of Baroda cannot refuse to nurse or rehabilitate the Unit as it would defeat the object to be secured under the Relief Undertaking Act. Finally, it was urged by the learned Counsel that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is attracted in the present case as by the tentative decisions taken in the joint meeting held by the Officers of the Banks and the financial institutions on January 22, 1986, the Company was promised that it would be nursed and brought back to health and on such promises, the petitioners had acted and changed their position. Shri Chinoy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workers supported the claim made by Shri Chagla and pointed out that from January 1984 onwards, there is no labour problem in the Unit and the Bank should give ample finances to enable the workers to retain their jobs. Shri Chinoy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workers supported the claim made by Shri Chagla and pointed out that from January 1984 onwards, there is no labour problem in the Unit and the Bank should give ample finances to enable the workers to retain their jobs. The relief was seriously resisted on behalf of Bank of Baroda and other financial institutions. Shri Andhyarujina learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Bank of Baroda, submitted that the petition is abuse of the writ jurisdiction and the writ Court should not enter into the question as to whether the decision taken by the financial institutions that the petitioner No. 1 Company is not viable Unit is correct or otherwise. Shri Andhyarujina urged that the Court should be slow in disturbing the judgment reached by the financial experts of the Nationalised Banks apart from the fact that the decision in the present case is entirely just and proper. Shri Andhyarujina pointed out that what was decided in the meeting of January 22, 1986 was a tentative proposal subject to approval of the higher authorities and the higher authorities of the Bank of Baroda, the Corporation Bank and Andhra Bank have unanimously turned down the proposal, realising that the petitioner No. 1 Company is not a viable Unit. The learned Counsel also pointed out that IRBI-respondent No. 3/ has not even undertaken the exercise of ascertaining the viability of petitioner No. 1 company. 5. Before examining the claim made by the petitioners about the viability of petitioner No. 1 Company and implementation of the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, it would be advantageous to bear in mind the limits of jurisdiction to be exercised in Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It hardly requires to be stated that it is not possible for the Court to determine the question as to whether a particular Unit is viable or otherwise because determination of such question would require examination of various facets including the financial implications and the courts are not in a position and are not equipped to undertake such detailed exercise. It hardly requires to be stated that it is not possible for the Court to determine the question as to whether a particular Unit is viable or otherwise because determination of such question would require examination of various facets including the financial implications and the courts are not in a position and are not equipped to undertake such detailed exercise. It is undoubtedly true that the Bank of Baroda being a Nationalised Bank is guided by the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India and in case it is established that the Bank of Baroda has declined to nurse or rehabilitate the petitioner No. 1 Company or arbitrary and unreasonable grounds, then the Court can certainly come to the help of the petitioners. It is necessary for the Court to leave some discretion in favour of the financial institutions to determine whether a Unit is a viable or otherwise and the Court should be extremely slow in forcing the financial institutions to advance public funds to private party on an assumption that the Unit would be viable. The discretion exercised by the financial institutions is not to be interfered unless it is made with oblique motives/or for extraneous purposes or upon extraneous considerations. The principle is well settled and reference can be usefully made to the observations in Para 17 of the judgment of the case of (Chingleput Bottlers v. Majestic Bottling Co.)1, reported in A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1030. In a latter decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal)2, reported in (1986)4 S.C.C. 566 Chief Justice Bhagwati while examining the claim for grant of licence for manufacture and sale of liquor in the State of Madhya Pradesh observed in para 34 that grant of licences would essentially be a matter of economic policy where the Court would hesitate to intervene and strike down what has been done unless it appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide. After referring to the decision in Bearer Bonds' case, (R.K. Garg. v. Union of India)3, reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2138 the learned Chief Justice observed that what was said in that case in regard to legislation relating to economic matters must apply equally in regard to executive action in the field of economic activities. After referring to the decision in Bearer Bonds' case, (R.K. Garg. v. Union of India)3, reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2138 the learned Chief Justice observed that what was said in that case in regard to legislation relating to economic matters must apply equally in regard to executive action in the field of economic activities. It was further observed as under : "We must not forget that in complex economic matters every decision is necessarily empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call trial or error method' and, therefore, its validity cannot be tested on any rigid "a prior" considerations of on the application of any strait-jacket formula. The Court must while audjudging the constitutional validity of an executive decision relating to economic matters grant a certain measure of freedom or 'play in the joints' to the executive............ The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments which may be cancelled for by particular circumstances. The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide." Keeping in mind the warning sounded by the Supreme Court while exercising writ jurisdiction in cases involving financial implications it is now necessary to examine the submission urged by Shri Chagla that the decision taken by the Bank of Baroda is arbitrary or unreasonable. 6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that Bank of Baroda had felt that the company is a viable unit and to seek confirmation of their opinion sought a report from Gami Consultants. The report given by Gami Consultants both preliminary and final, supports the contention of the petitioners that the Company is a viable Unit provided that financial institutions undertake to nurse the same and make advances. It was contended that there was no occasion for Bank of Baroda to turn down the favourable report made by Gami Consultants and, more so, when in accordance with the report, the Bank had entered into correspondence with the Reserve Bank of India suggesting sanction for enhancement of working capital. It was contended that there was no occasion for Bank of Baroda to turn down the favourable report made by Gami Consultants and, more so, when in accordance with the report, the Bank had entered into correspondence with the Reserve Bank of India suggesting sanction for enhancement of working capital. Shri Chagla submitted that the Managing Director and the Chairman made adverse remark on the basis of extraneous considerations against the Company and, therefore, the same should be ignored and the Bank of Baroda should be directed to nurse petitioner No. 1 Company Unit and make advances as per the decisions taken in the meeting dated January 22, 1986. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel. The preliminary report of Gami Consultants was submitted in September 1983, while the final report was submitted in January 1985. The preliminary report merely prescribes for a viability plan under which the company was to increase its contribution of fixed costs per Metric Tonne of the product from the existing level of around Rs. 0.40 Lakhs/M.T. to say Rs. 0.70 Lakhs/M.T. for Ambarnath Plant. It is not in dispute that after receipt of the preliminary report, the Bank of Baroda entered into correspondence with the Reserve Bank of India seeking approval under Credit Authorisation Scheme, for increase of working capital limits of Rs. 357 lakhs, Working Capital Term Loan of Rs. 250 Lakhs, reduction in margin and charging interest at 15% on working capital term loan. A letter in this connection was addressed to the Reserve Bank of India on March 22, 1984 and subsequent letter dated April 19, 1984 recited that the Bank was guided by the report of M/s. Gami Consultants for assessing the working capital of the Company. After large correspondence, the approval was received from the Reserve Bank of India on January 12, 1985 for raising the Working Capital Limit to Rs. 307 Lakhs and enhanced working capital term loan of Rs. 360 Lakhs for a period of one year. It is also accepted by Shri Chagla that after the preliminary report of Gami Consultants, the Bank of Baroda advanced a sum of Rs. 166 Lakhs to the petitioner No. 1 Company, though according to Shri Andhyarujina, the amount paid was Rs. 203 Lakhs. 360 Lakhs for a period of one year. It is also accepted by Shri Chagla that after the preliminary report of Gami Consultants, the Bank of Baroda advanced a sum of Rs. 166 Lakhs to the petitioner No. 1 Company, though according to Shri Andhyarujina, the amount paid was Rs. 203 Lakhs. It is, therefore, clear that Bank of Baroda on receipt of the preliminary report was prepared to nurse or rehabilitate the Company on the basis that it may be a viable Unit. Now, the final report was submitted in January 1985 and the recommendation was that sufficient cash funds should be made available to the Company to increase the production and sale to 50 Metric Tonnes per month and thereafter the Company should continuously increase the production every month. Gami Consultants also suggested that interest should be levied at the rate of 13.5 % for the terms as well as working capital finance and no interest should be charged on the funded interest. On receipt of the final report, the General Manager of Bank of Baroda advised Shri Mody, the Technical Finance Officer, to prepare a note. Shri Mody prepared a note pointing out that the target set out in the report of Gami Consultants was too optimistic, Shri Mody found that the overheads of the company are on higher side as compared to the level of operations mainly because of higher incidental cost. Shri Mody felt that it is difficult to say whether the Company would be successful in marketing 50 tons of dyes an average of Rs. 77,500/- contribution per ton in the light of what is achieved in the previous year and in absence of exact data about demand of such products. 7. On January 22, 1986, a meeting of Officers of the financial institutions and the Banks was held to consider whether it would be possible to nurse the Company to health under the rehabilitation programme. The representatives of the Banks and the Institutions noted that the Company could not achieve level of production of 50 Metric Tonnes per month and continued to incur losses consistently. Bank of Baroda was inclined to consider grant of additional working capital of Rs. The representatives of the Banks and the Institutions noted that the Company could not achieve level of production of 50 Metric Tonnes per month and continued to incur losses consistently. Bank of Baroda was inclined to consider grant of additional working capital of Rs. 130 lakhs but insisted on margin money and IRBI was willing to consider granting of the loan to provide margin of additional working capital provided the Promoters contribute at least 20% and a viability study is undertaken to ensure that the Unit is viable. Certain others decisions which are referred to hereinabove were reached, but it was made very clear that the package would be considered subject to the approval of the higher authorities. Now, what transpired within a short time thereafter is an eye opener. On February 15,1986, the Chief Manager of the Andhra Bank informed Bank of Baroda that Andhra Bank is not in favour of granting concessions to petitioner No. 1 Company as the entire amount due for payment has not been refunded inspite of grant of sufficient time to the Company. The Chief Manager of the Corporation Bank also addressed letter dated February 24, 1986 informing Bank of Baroda that Corporation Bank has decided to recall the advance and to take further steps for recovery of the dues. It is therefore, obvious that the two Nationalised Banks had realised that the package tentatively agreed in the joint meeting cannot be gone through it is also interesting to note that IRBI who had to undertake detailed viability study before granting loan for providing margin money did not undertake the exercise at any stage and after Bank of Baroda filed suit in this Court for recovery of Rs. 8 crores, decided to remove petitioner No. 1 Company from their list. It is, therefore, obvious that what was tentatively agreed, subject to confirmation of the higher authorities in the joint meeting never went through, and possibly because the Banks and the financial institutions realised that petitioner No. 1 Company is in hopeless financial situation and cannot be nursed back to health. Shri Chagla submitted that Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank have subsequently advanced some amounts to petitioner No. 1 Company and that indicates that these two Banks have not given up package tentatively agreed. Shri Chagla submitted that Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank have subsequently advanced some amounts to petitioner No. 1 Company and that indicates that these two Banks have not given up package tentatively agreed. The submission has no merit because on behalf of the Corporation Bank return sworn on June 23, 1986 by Shri Alevoor Padmanabha Kodancha the Chief Manager and the Principal Officer is filled with specific averment that Corporation Bank was and is not in favour of rehabilitating the Company having regard to the past experience. The defendant claims that after the joint meeting, it was ascertained that due to heavy debt burden disproportionate to the company's level of operations, it was felt that the Company could not be made financially viable, even if the Company was given additional finance. Andhra Bank has not filed any return and, therefore, it is difficult to assume that Andhra Bank has accepted the package and, more so, in view of the specific letter written by Andhra Bank to Bank of Baroda. It is, therefore, clear that the three Banks and the financial institutions have clearly come to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 Company is not a viable undertaking and no worthwhile purpose would be served by pouring public money in such sinking ship. In my judgement, no fault can be found with such conclusion. Shri Chagla, in this connection, urged that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is attracted in the present case because in pursuance of the decision taken in the joint meeting, petitioner No. 1 company has acquired certain rights. It is impossible to accede to the submission. In the first instance, the tentative decisions taken is the meeting of the representatives of the financial institutions and the Bank can by no stretch of imagination be treated as promises. The tentative decisions recorded in the minutes were subject to confirmation by the higher authorities and as mentioned here in above the higher authorities turned down the proposal. In my judgement, the financial institutions had never given any promise to the Company and much less the petitioners have changed their position in view of such promises. The claim of the petitioners that writ of mandamus should be issued in view of the operation of doctrine of promissory estoppel deserves to be turned down. 8. In my judgement, the financial institutions had never given any promise to the Company and much less the petitioners have changed their position in view of such promises. The claim of the petitioners that writ of mandamus should be issued in view of the operation of doctrine of promissory estoppel deserves to be turned down. 8. Shri Chagla submitted that the decision taken by the Bank of Baroda for recovering the advances and not nursing or rehabilitating petitioner No. 1 Company was arbitrary and unreasonable. Before examining this plea, it is required to be stated that it is not the claim of the petitioners that any Officer of the Bank has acted mala fide or with a bias to deprive the Company of additional funds. In absence of any plea about mala fides or bias, the contention of Shri Chagla is that the note prepared by the Managing Director and the Chairman of the Bank of Baroda indicates that extraneous considerations were taken into account while refusing to nurse petitioner No. 1 Company. Before referring to the remarks of the Managing Director and the Chairman, it is necessary to reiterate the steps taken by Bank of Baroda after receipt of the final report by Gami Consultants. The final report was received in January 1985 and on July 16, 1985, the General Manager advised Shri Mody financial expert, to study the report and prepare a note. On August 3, 1985 Shri Mody prepared the report and his conclusion was that looking to the past performance and various constraints it cannot be said that petitioner No. 1 Company will be able to achieve results as projected. Shri Mody further stated that the Company has been facing problems of marketability, labour trouble, shortage of funds and has been continuously incurring losses for last over several years. It was further observed that if the Unit is to be nursed, a large sacrifice by way of write off of interest and reliefs and concessions and additional working capital funds will be required. On receipt of this report, the Chairman and Managing Director made the following note : "The question of making any attempt towards rehabilitation of this unit under the present management does not arise unless the promoters bring in large funds towards equity capital or subordinated interest for a loan we cannot entertain any rescue package. On receipt of this report, the Chairman and Managing Director made the following note : "The question of making any attempt towards rehabilitation of this unit under the present management does not arise unless the promoters bring in large funds towards equity capital or subordinated interest for a loan we cannot entertain any rescue package. The advance should be recalled and we shall try to find out some one interested to step into the management with suitable financial stake." In pursuance of this note, the Board of Directors in their meeting dated May 8, 1986 decided to inform the petitioners of the inability of the Bank to nurse the Unit and to take steps to recall advances. Shri Chagla strenuously submitted that the Managing Director and the Chairman seems to be obsessed by the fact that while the present management is in charge, the Bank should not entertain the package but if the management changes then it may be possible. The learned Counsel submitted that in none of the reports, there was any complaint about any mismanagement by the Officer bearers of the Company and, therefore, the Chairman seems to have proceeded on extraneous consideration to turn down the request for nursing the Unit. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel. After receipt of the final report of Gami Consultants, Shri Mody prepared a note. Thereafter a detailed study report was prepared and forwarded to the Central Office and that report as well Shri Mody's note clearly indicates that the potentiality of petitioner No. 1 Company was very doubtful and the Company was not a viable unit in terms of guidelines laid down by Reserve Bank of India. All these reports were before the Chairman and it is not even alleged that the Chairman has any bias against the company. In these circumstances it must be presumed that the Chairman was satisfied with the reports and the note prepared by Shri Mody and in addition found that the rescue package cannot be gone through unless the present management brings large funds. In my judgment, the note does not reflect any prejudice against the present management but the desire of the Chairman that the present management should bring it more funds on their own and should not merely depend on the advances from Bank of Baroda. In my judgment, the note does not reflect any prejudice against the present management but the desire of the Chairman that the present management should bring it more funds on their own and should not merely depend on the advances from Bank of Baroda. The latter part of the note about finding someone interested stepping in the management was only with a view to secure repayment of large amounts advanced by Bank of Baroda. In my judgment the note prepared by the Chairman must be read in its proper context and then it would be clear that the note cannot be considered as having reflection by the Chairman on the present management or has any prejudice in the mind of the Chairman against the Company. The Chairman, in my judgment, was acting for the best interest of the Bank and it would be futile to conclude from this note that Bank of Baroda has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in refusing to take the Company under the plan of rehabilitation. 9. It is necessary, in this connection, to mention what transpired after filing of the petition. When the petition was heard on Nov. 27, 1986 after some arguments. I felt that the determination of the issue involved in the petition would result into serious financial implication on Bank of Baroda. The principle question to be determined is about the viability of the Company and I left that Reserve Bank of India-respondent No. 2-should assess the vialibility of the petitioner No. 1 Company in accordance with the Circular dated November 5, 1985 and inform the Court the conclusions reached. Shri Talyarkhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India, thereupon stated that the Reserve Bank has no machinery to assess the viability and normally such question is referred by the Reserve Bank to the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI). Shri Talyarkhan assures that the question would be referred to IDBI and after receipt of the report, the Reserve Bank of India will convey opinion about the viability of petitioner No. 1 Company to this Court. Both the petitioners and the Bank of Baroda stated that the material in support of their respective claims would be handed over to Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly, I passed the order dated November 27, 1986, and adjourned the hearing of the petition. Both the petitioners and the Bank of Baroda stated that the material in support of their respective claims would be handed over to Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly, I passed the order dated November 27, 1986, and adjourned the hearing of the petition. IDBI accordingly undertook the exercise to ascertain the viability of petitioner No. 1 Company and after examining the material produced by the petitioners forwarded their report dated December 5, 1986 to the Reserve Bank of India and the report is entirely adverse to the petitioners. The conclusion is that it would require 36 years for repayment of the loans and the Company's operations would not be viable with normal reliefs as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines. Copy of the report was produced by Shri Talyarkhan and is taken on record and marked "X". Shri Talyarkhan stated that the Reserve Bank of India entirely concurs with the conclusion reached by IDBI. In view of the report made by IDBI and in view of the stand taken by Reserve Bank of India, it is absolutely clear that the petitioner No. 1 Company is not viable Unit and the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. I must make it clear that it was on my recommendation that the Reserve Bank of India requested IDBI to make the report and I made the suggestion to ensure that the decision taken by the Bank of Baroda was reasonable and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. The report made by IDBI indicates that the Company has incurred huge cash losses during the years 1983-1986 and the comparative statement of balance-sheet of profit and loss account for the years 1983 to 1986 is annexed as Annexure 1 to the report and the summary is as follows: (Rs. The report made by IDBI indicates that the Company has incurred huge cash losses during the years 1983-1986 and the comparative statement of balance-sheet of profit and loss account for the years 1983 to 1986 is annexed as Annexure 1 to the report and the summary is as follows: (Rs. Lakhs) 1983 1984 19851986 -- -- -- -- A) i) Share Capital 88 88 88 88 ii) Reserves surplus 20 19 19 19 iii) Accumulated loss 278 437 547 698 iv) Net worth (170) (330) (440 )(591) v) Current assets 331 306 526 530 vi) Current liabilities 179 188 234 184 vii) Bank borrowings 324 411 673 832 B) i) Sales (in MT) 324 286 488 483 ii) Sales value 394 334 577 581 iii) Gross profit / (Loss) (6) (27) 49 43 iv) Depreciation 30 30 34 30 v) Interest 77 102 140 173 vi) Operating loss (113) (159) (125) (160) vii) Cash loss (83) (129) (91) (130) Annexure III to Ex."X" shows the outstanding of term loans of institutions and Banks and the amounts due to Maharashtra State Financial Corporation is Rs. 7.75 Lakhs, State Industrial and Investment Corporation Rs. 137.67 Lakhs, Andhra Bank Rs. 37.25 Lakhs, Corporation Bank Rs. 31.75 Lakhs, and Saraswat Co-operative Bank, Rs. 1.60 Lakhs, thus making the total of Rs. 216.02 Lakhs. The amount due to Bank of Baroda is Rs. 8.72 Crores as per the annexure to Ex.'X'. On perusal of the report made by the I.D.B.I. there is hardly any doubt that the petitioner No. 1 Company is not a viable Unit in terms of guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. After receipt of the report from IDBI, the petitioners have filed an additional affidavit sworn on Dec. 17, 1986 and it is claimed that IDBI has overlooked that though the petitioners manufacture both dyes and chemicals, in its balance sheet break up of production and sales figures for dyes and chemicals are not given. It is claimed by the petitioner that IDBI has arrived at a figure of Rs. 1.31 Lakhs as being the average selling price per tonne, by simply dividing the sales value of Rs. 8.33 Lakhs by the sales quantity of 483 metric tonnes and the future projections are based on this average sales price. The petitioners claim that the Company had different production capacities for manufacture of three different kinds of dyes. 1.31 Lakhs as being the average selling price per tonne, by simply dividing the sales value of Rs. 8.33 Lakhs by the sales quantity of 483 metric tonnes and the future projections are based on this average sales price. The petitioners claim that the Company had different production capacities for manufacture of three different kinds of dyes. The average selling price should have been worked out at Rs. 1.55 Lakhs per tonne and if this correct computation is taken into account, then the report of IDBI would be required to be rejected. It is further claimed that on the correct computation it would be established that the petitioner No. 1 Company would make substantial profits for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 and would be able to wipe out the entire loan account. It is impossible to place any reliance on such affidavit for more than one reason. In the first instance, the issue on this petition is not about the accuracy of the report made by IDBI. The said report was made on the suggestion made by me and the report was made after the petitioners were given ample opportunity to produce all the material insupport of the claim. The report proceeds on the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account certified by the Company and it is futile now to claim that the petitioners failed to point out the different nature of the productions and that has resulted into mistake in determination of the average sale price. The claim made by the petitioners in this affidavit is obviously an afterthought and is nothing but desperate attempt to come out of a hopeless situation. The petitioners approached this Court by claiming that Bank of Baroda is recalling its advances arbitrarily and unreasonably and having failed in that attempt now desires to challenge the report of an independent body and which has been approved by the Reserve Bank of India. It cannot be overlooked that the grievance in this petition is not about the validity or the accuracy of the report of the IDBI and the report was sought only to ensure that what was done by Bank of Baroda was reasonable and just. It cannot be overlooked that the grievance in this petition is not about the validity or the accuracy of the report of the IDBI and the report was sought only to ensure that what was done by Bank of Baroda was reasonable and just. It is not possible for this Court to examine the future prospects of the Company on the Basis of what is averred by the petitioners and then direct Bank of Baroda to spend public fund on such sick unit. In my judgment no credence can given to the claim made in this affidavit filed after the receipt of the report of IDBI. In my judgment , the conclusion is unescapable that the petitioner No. 1 Company is not viable unit in accordance with the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the decision taken by Bank of Baroda cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable but on the other hand it is more just, fair and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision is entirely in the public interest. 10. It is now required briefly to refer to the submission urged by Shri Chinoy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workers of the Company. The workers had appeared as Interveners at the initial stage and the workers took out Chamber Summons being Chamber Summons No. 402 of 1986 for being joined as party respondents. The Chamber Summons was adjourned to the hearing of this petition and I made the Chamber Summons absolute and directed the Interveners M/s. Chemiequip Employees Association, a Trade Union---to be joined as party respondent on the assurance of Shri Chinoy that the Interveners would not insist on service of notice of petition and would not file any more affidavits. Shri Chinoy submitted that the reliefs sought by the petitioners should be granted as the refusal would result in the Company being wound up and would deprive 500 labourers of their bread. Shri Chinoy submitted that from January 1985, there are no labour problems in the Company and the labourers have assured the Company of peace and production. In my judgment these considerations are totally irrelevant for directing the financial institutions to pour the funds in a Unit which is financially not viable. Shri Chinoy submitted that from January 1985, there are no labour problems in the Company and the labourers have assured the Company of peace and production. In my judgment these considerations are totally irrelevant for directing the financial institutions to pour the funds in a Unit which is financially not viable. The funds to be advanced by the financial Institutions are those which are deposited by common man and such hard earned money should not be wasted on a Unit which is not viable. Shri Chinoy also stated that the State Government has declared the Company as Relief Undertaking and the object of continuation of operation of the Units would be defeated if the funds are not made available by Bank of Baroda. It is impossible to appreciate any force in the submission. The mere fact that the Unit has been declared as Relief Undertaking and that too without consulting Bank of Baroda or the other financial institutions, cannot compel the financial institutions to advance money to such a Unit. In my judgment, the claim made by the labourers is without any merit. 11. Accordingly, petition fails and the rule is discharged with costs. Shri Chagla applies for continuation of interim relief for a period of two weeks. Prayer granted. Petition dismissed. -----