V. B. BANSAL ( 1 ) PETITIONERS have filed this writ petition with a prayer for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, calling for the records of the present case and after going into the question of the legality and validity thereof to strike down and quash the proceedings before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B. I. F. R.) in case No. 64 of 1987, and also restraining the respondents from passing any order in the said proceedings. ( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1, a 100% export oriented unit, is a private limited company and the petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and its Managing Director. This company has installed capacity to manufacture 2400 tonnes of absorbent cotton per annum with a licence to double its capacity to 4800 tonnes per annum. ( 3 ) BOARD of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, respondent No. l, has been constituted under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). Respondent No. 2 is the Union of India. ( 4 ) THE petitioner company was having financial assistance from the Central Bank of India, the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (S. I. C. O. M.) and also from Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (M. S. F. C. ). It continued its business but had financial difficulties and even disputes arose between the petitioner company as also the financial institutions, which led to the filing of a suit against the petitioner company by the Central Bank of India. There was a strike by the employees of the petitioner company which has 70 persons in its employment The bank held the petitioner company to be a non-viable unit and asked for the payment of the amount ( 5 ) THE petitioner company became a sick industrial company as provided under Section 3 (1) (o) of the Act and, so, it filed an application before the B. I. F. R. with a request to finalise a package, as had been agreed to by the financial institutions, viz. the Central Bank of India, S. I. C. O. M. , M. S. F. C. and the Reserve Bank of lndia in a meeting held on 2. 3. 1987. An order dated 6. 10. the Central Bank of India, S. I. C. O. M. , M. S. F. C. and the Reserve Bank of lndia in a meeting held on 2. 3. 1987. An order dated 6. 10. 1987 was passed by the B. I. F. R. , exereising the powers under subsection (3) of Section 17 of the Act and the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India was appointed as the operating agency for preparing a scheme for rehabilitation of this company, if possible, and a direction was given as to what aspects were to be kept in view while formulating the rehabilitation scheme. Proceedings are continuing before the B. I. F. R. ( 6 ) IT has been pleaded by the petitioners that this company has entered into settlements with the Central Bank of India, S. I. C. O. M. and M. S. F. C. and that it has been earning profits during the last two years and no assistance has so far been obtained from the B. I. F. R. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner company is not a sick industrial company and is not in need of any assistance from B. I. F. R. Further averments made in the petition have been that B. I. F. R. proceedings arc not being dropped, thereby causing losto the petitioner and mat there is no justification for keeping the proceedings alive and, thus, this petition. ( 7 ) NO counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 is B. I. F. R. , constituted under Section 4 of the Act and is performing quasi-judicial functions. Respondent No. 2, Union of India, has also not filed any counter affidavit in spite of the fact that Rule nisi was issued in the petition on 19. 3. 1993 and, thus, opportunity was available to the respondent No. 2 to file the counter affidavit ( 8 ) I have heard Shri Arun Jaitley, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Madan Lokur, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a scheme has been formulated by the petitioner company with the financial institutions and that the petitioner company is not a sick industrial company, as provided under Section 3 (l) (o) of the Act. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a scheme has been formulated by the petitioner company with the financial institutions and that the petitioner company is not a sick industrial company, as provided under Section 3 (l) (o) of the Act. He has further submitted that there are no grounds for the B. I. F. R. to continue with the proceedings when no assistance is required by the petitioner and no scheme so far has been formulated for its rehabilitation. He has, thus, submitted that the proceedings ought to have been dropped by the respondent No. l, as has been done in a number of cases. He has also submitted that the petitioner company is prepared to move an application in this regard before the respondent No. 1 and that a direction may be issued to respondent No. l to dispose of the same expeditiously. ( 10 ) MR. Madan Lokur submits that there can possibly be no objection to the petitioner approaching the respondent No. l for dropping the proceedings and the Board being asked to dispose of the application expeditiously. He has also pointed out that from a decision of the B. I. F. R. an appeal lies before the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 12 and as provided under Section 25 of the Act. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING all these facts, I am clearly of the view that it would be appropriate that a request is made by the petitioner to the Board for dropping the proceedings so that the same is disposed of in accordance with law. ( 12 ) AS a result, the petitioner is permitted to move appropriate application before the respondent No. l within a week and the same would be disposed of by the B. I. F. R. expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of its presentation. The petitioner would be free to take such steps as deemed to be necessary under law after the disposal of the application by the B. I. F. R. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.