A. P. Mishra, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 2. 5. 1996 passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as AAIFR), and the order dated 27. 4. 1995 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as BIFR) and directing the Operating Agency, namely, the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as ICICI) to prepare a fresh scheme of rehabilitation/revival of the petitioner s industry. ( 2 ) THE short facts are, the petitioner set up a mini cement plant at Gunial Gaon in the backward district of Dehra Dun with an investment of more than Rs. 5 crore. The petitioner is a public limited company. It started commercial production from its factory in November, 1982 and provided employment to about 400 persons. ( 3 ) LATER certain petitions were filed in the Hon ble Supreme Court of India praying for closure of industrial and mining activity in the entire Doon Valley as they were polluting and degenerating ecology. These petitions succeeding, as a consequence petitioner s running industrial unit was ordered to be closed down. ( 4 ) THE relevant extracts of the orders passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India are quoted as under:- @subpara = "we cannot go back upon our earlier order that the cement factory shall not be permitted to in at the site. Shifting from this place has, therefore, got to be done. " @subpara = "a. R. C. Ltd. (petitioner), a private cement manufacturing concern located within the Mussoorie and Dehradun Development Authority Jurisdiction has been closed down by orders of this Court mainly on account of being a polluting instrumentality in the area. Under our orders, the question of shifting this factory to a non-objectionable area has been under consideration for over four years. Since, it was a running concern and has been closed down under Court s orders we thought it our moral responsibility to provide an alternative site to which the factory could be shifted and the Doon Valley would no more be threatened by yet another industrial unit. Since, it was a running concern and has been closed down under Court s orders we thought it our moral responsibility to provide an alternative site to which the factory could be shifted and the Doon Valley would no more be threatened by yet another industrial unit. " @subpara = "in terms of the Court s decision that the said area would not be used for any manufacturing process which would affect the environment by pollution, under Court s order the manufacturing process has been stopped. As there was already a huge investment, we agreed to monitor the shifting of the factory and made detailed directions on 20th September, 1991. " ( 5 ) DUE to this resultant closure of the operational activities, the petitioner company became a sick industrial company and, thus it applied by way of reference to the BIFR. This reference was rejected, holding that the petitioner was not an industrial company within the definition of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called SICA) vide its orders dated 26. 12. 89/20. 6. 90. The petitioner aggrieved filed an appeal before the AAIFR. The AAIFR in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court overruled the orders passed by the BIFR. Thereafter, the entire matter again went back to BIFR. The BIFR by order dated 14. 2. 1994 appointed ICICI as the Operating Agency to examine the company s viability and submit its report for its rehabilitation. Thereafter, the BIFR passed its order dated 9. 11. 1994, recorded, as per the ICICI s consultants the cost of the scheme remained at Rs. 32. 85 crores and this included land, machinery and building cost of Rs. 27. 96 crores and other costs like payment to creditors of Rs. 69 lakhs, cash losses during implementation period of Rs. 363 lakhs and margin money of Rs. 56 lakhs. the financing plans envisaged unsecured loans from promoters of Rs. 11. 56 crores, interest from funds/deposits from housing complex Rs. 17. 65 crores and interest funding by Banks and Institutions Rs. 363 lakhs. After considering various submissions, the BIFR observed that the contributions from the promoters for reviving the project has to be minimum of 30% of the cost of the scheme together with monetary value of the relief and concessions which has been fixed as Rs. 11. 56 crores by the Operating Agency. 363 lakhs. After considering various submissions, the BIFR observed that the contributions from the promoters for reviving the project has to be minimum of 30% of the cost of the scheme together with monetary value of the relief and concessions which has been fixed as Rs. 11. 56 crores by the Operating Agency. If the promoter is not in a position to bring in a minimum of this amount of money required, revival of the company is not possible. The BIFR further granted one week s time to the petitioner to confirm; @subpara = i) that he will be able to bring in the promoters contribution for implementation of the scheme Rs. 11. 56 crores. @subpara = ii) that he will give the necessary guarantee for making up any short-fall in the projected profits to come from the housing complex activity. @subpara = iii) that he will bring in additional Rs. 6. 5 crores upfront in order to raise the level of DSCR to an acceptable figure of 1. 33. ( 6 ) THE petitioner confirmed to the BIFR as under:- @subpara = That the promoters of petitioner will contribute 30% of the total cost of the scheme which has been quantified by the Operating Agency at Rs. 11. 36 crores and the balance 70% in the project will be contributed by the Institutions. In view of this it was summarised as under:- @5tb = A. COST OF THE SCHEME (Rs. in crores) @5tb = i) for shifting of the plant and machinery from existing site to new site and conversion to modern dry process cement plant for increased capacity ()32. 84 @5tb = ii) seed money for housing Complex (_) (_)6. 00 @5tb = (_) (MO)38. 84 D @5tb = B. MEANS OF FINANCE @5tb = i) promoters contribution (_) (_)13. 36 @5tb = ii) from Institutions/banks etc. (_) (_)25. 48 @5tb = (_) (_) (MO)38. 84 (D) ( 7 ) HOWEVER, this was conditional, viz. , no interest will be charged for the closure period and all reliefs, concessions etc. are made available and applicable as to a sick and new units will be granted to the petitioner. ( 8 ) BY order dated 13. 2. 1995 BIFR issued public show cause notice under Section 20 of the SICA, after prima facie finding that the petitioner should be wound up under Section 20 of the SICA. are made available and applicable as to a sick and new units will be granted to the petitioner. ( 8 ) BY order dated 13. 2. 1995 BIFR issued public show cause notice under Section 20 of the SICA, after prima facie finding that the petitioner should be wound up under Section 20 of the SICA. ( 9 ) ON 27. 4. 1995 the BIFR disposed of the show cause notice and confirmed its prima facie opinion that it is just and fair that the petitioner be wound up and forwarded its opinion to the High Court for necessary action under the law. ( 10 ) THE aggrieved petitioner went in appeal against this impugned order before the AAIFR. The appeal was heard and dismissed on 26. 4. 1996. ( 11 ) THE AAIFR inter alia observed :- @subpara = "4. The learned counsel for ARCCL vehemently argued that the existing promoters can bring in 30% of the cost of scheme plus the monetary value of sacrifices of the bank and institutions and that the remaining 70% should be provided by the bank/financial institutions. In other words, they seek to bring their contribution from the profits expected to be generated out of the proposed housing complex in the existing site. The dues of the bank/financial institutions have already risen to Rs. 12. 21 crores as on 31. 3. 94. By now, these would have increased further by about Rs. 5 crores on account of compound interest. The banks and financial institutions can only provide interest-bearing funds. They cannot be expected to give out-right subsidies for such projects. A project has to generate surpluses to repay instalments of loan and interest. This is possible if the DSCR is at least 1. 33. . . . . The representatives of ICICI (OA) submitted that the banks and financial institutions have been noting with concern, in recent years, the failure of a number of mini cement manufacturing ventures and, therefore, do not feel optimistic about the success of such schemes. The appellant company s proposals, envisaging infusion of large funds by bank/financial institutions, are not acceptable to the banks and financial institutions. . . . . In these circumstances, ARCCL has become technically, economically and financially unviable and it is not possible to rehabilitate ARCCL by relocating its mini cement plant at another site. . . . The appellant company s proposals, envisaging infusion of large funds by bank/financial institutions, are not acceptable to the banks and financial institutions. . . . . In these circumstances, ARCCL has become technically, economically and financially unviable and it is not possible to rehabilitate ARCCL by relocating its mini cement plant at another site. . . . " ( 12 ) BASED on the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court to contend that the respondents should have sympathetically considered to rehabilitate the petitioner on the proposed scheme or the revised scheme submitted by the petitioner. The reliance is placed on the following portion of the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court:- @subpara = "since, it was a running concern and has been closed down under Court s orders, we thought it our moral responsibility to provide an alternative site to which the factory could be shifted and the Doon Valley would no more be threatened by yet another industrial unit. " ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents strongly refuted this contention and asserts that there is no direction by the Hon ble Supreme Court to rehabilitate the petitioner, nor has it restricted the exercise of power by the respondents to consider the viability of petitioner s scheme within the framework of law as contained in SICA. The BIFR has sympathetically considered the case of the petitioner and on 9. 11. 1994 directed the promoters of the petitioner company to confirm to the proposal quoted above. In response on 22. 11. 1994 the petitioner submitted a second proposal though purporting to be confirming its willingness to contribute Rs. 1136 lakhs (30% of total cost of the scheme) this was on the condition that the banks/financial institutions will have to contribute Rs. 2548 lakhs towards the cost of the scheme totalling to Rs. 3284 lakhs. The seed money for the proposed housing complex was estimated by the promoters at Rs. 600 lakhs. 70% of the above, namely, Rs. 420 lakhs was to be contributed by financial institutions/banks and 30% by the promoters. However, this was conditional, namely, there will be no charge for the interest for closure period from August, 1986 to March, 1997. The contention is BIFR has considered the proposal and has rightly rejected the same. 600 lakhs. 70% of the above, namely, Rs. 420 lakhs was to be contributed by financial institutions/banks and 30% by the promoters. However, this was conditional, namely, there will be no charge for the interest for closure period from August, 1986 to March, 1997. The contention is BIFR has considered the proposal and has rightly rejected the same. The relevant portion of the order passed by the BIFR is reproduced below:- @subpara = "in any case, the report of the OA clearly brought out that the project cannot bear any interest bearing funds to be serviced out of its profits. It was in this background that the Bench has come to the conclusion that the company with this large debt would not be viable for rehabilitation on long term basis. The present argument of the company that in terms of the Supreme Court judgment, the company has to be rehabilitated is not correct. The Supreme Court in their order has only suggested that an opportunity should be given for the company to shift this factory to an alternative site. The intention cannot be that financial institutions should give assistance to the company without looking into the norms of viability. In any case, BIFR can sanction a scheme under Section 18 only if the financial institutions give their consent to the reliefs and concessions envisaged under the scheme in terms of Section 19 of the Act. In this case, the extraordinary reliefs and concessions sought for by the company including fresh loans have not been agreed to by the financial institutions. The company has not been able to make alternate arrangement for funding this scheme. . . . . . . . the Bench therefore confirms its prima facie opinion that it is just and fair that the sick industrial company, namely, ARC Cement Ltd, be would up. . . . . . . " ( 14 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the appellant Shri P. V. Kapur and learned Counsel for the Operating Agency, Shri Arun Jaitley at length. Both of them presented their case with clarity and precision. ( 15 ) THE petitioner s initial thrust is based on the observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court extracted earlier. " ( 14 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the appellant Shri P. V. Kapur and learned Counsel for the Operating Agency, Shri Arun Jaitley at length. Both of them presented their case with clarity and precision. ( 15 ) THE petitioner s initial thrust is based on the observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court extracted earlier. After considering the same, we do not find any observation directing the concerned respondents to rehabilitate the petitioner, or directing the respondents for extending any financial assistance to the petitioner for revival of its unit. The said observations merely stated that @subpara = "since it was a running concern and has been closed down under Court s orders we thought it our moral responsibility to provide an alternative site to which the factory could be shifted. . . . " ( 16 ) THE Hon ble Supreme Court here merely expressed concern for providing an alternative site. This is also clear with reference to another extract of the Hon ble Supreme Court s order dated 1. 8. 1991:- @subpara = ". . . For over four years now the question of shifting the cement factory from this location to a non-controversial area has been engaging the attention of the State Government, the Pollution Board and the petitioners and occasionally this Court when moved. WE are sorry to state that within these four years an alternative site has not been found out. It may be that the petitioners are more responsible for this than the public authorities on account of the fact that a definite alternative site has not been proposed to Government. . . . . . " ( 17 ) HERE the fault is attributed to the petitioner. ( 18 ) THUS what is discernible is the concern of the Hon ble Supreme Court for the shifting of petitioner s factory to another site, not giving financial help to revive this sick unit. Hence, the submission for the respondent has merit. . . . . . " ( 17 ) HERE the fault is attributed to the petitioner. ( 18 ) THUS what is discernible is the concern of the Hon ble Supreme Court for the shifting of petitioner s factory to another site, not giving financial help to revive this sick unit. Hence, the submission for the respondent has merit. ( 19 ) THE preamble of the SICA is quoted hereunder: @subpara = "an act to make in the public interest, special provisions with a view to securing the timely detection of sick and potentially sick companies owning industrial undertakings, the speedy determination by a Board of experts of the preventive, ameliorative, remedial and other measures which need to be taken with respect to such companies and the expeditious enforcement of the measures so determined and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. " ( 20 ) THIS was with an object in view to overcome and make remedial redress of the loss of production, employment, revenue, to revive and rehabilitate potentially viable sick industrial companies. When we say viable sick unit what is inherent is, a revival scheme, with investment from financial institutions and bank which are not thrown to the dust, potentiality of such unit has still life to rise to return to production and pay back all loans with interest. Statutory functionaries has to act within this parameter, viz, revival of sick unit and its viability to revive the production with an out put to pay back at least all revival investment. ( 21 ) THE statutory functionaries under the Act have to function within this limitation and within the frame-word of the law. Equity in law is always a consideration even while interpreting any statute or other laws, but where equities are in contradiction of the law or forces the authority to go beyond the law, no relief in such equity could be granted. The respondent states in fact there is no equity in favour of the petitioner. Firstly, the petitioner being polluter, polluting the public at large has no equity; secondly it is the inaction on the part of the petitioner by not promptly selecting the site, permitting this unmanageable interest to grow that no scheme with many alternative was found viable. ( 22 ) EVEN otherwise, we have scrutinised the two impugned orders. Firstly, the petitioner being polluter, polluting the public at large has no equity; secondly it is the inaction on the part of the petitioner by not promptly selecting the site, permitting this unmanageable interest to grow that no scheme with many alternative was found viable. ( 22 ) EVEN otherwise, we have scrutinised the two impugned orders. During the pendency of the matter before the BIFR, the petitioner company initially made a proposal pertaining to the revival of its unit in February, 1994 on which was, submitted a counter report of the Operating Agency which was followed by company s letter in November, 1994 and finally another proposal of the company in November, 1996. A chart showing the aforesaid in detail is recorded hereunder:- @5tb = (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) (Rs. in Lac) @5tb = company s Proposal (_) (_)OA Report company s Letter company s Proposal of feb 94 of Nov 94 nov 96 @5tb = Cost of scheme (_) (_)2,300 (_) (_) (_) (_)3,284 3,284 (_) (_)2,575 @5tb = Seed Money for Housing Complex (_) (_) 200 - 600 (_) (_)300 @5tb = Total Cost (_) 2,500 3,284 3,884 (_) 2,875 @5tb = Means of Financing @5tb = Promoters (+)contribution (+)Equity/ (+)Interest (+)free loans. (_) (_)150 1,156 1,136 (_) (_)1,200 @5tb = Profits (+)from (+)Housing (+)Complex/ (+)Interest (+) free loans. (_) 1,750 1,765 - (_) (_) - @5tb = Bridge loans (+)from (+)FIs/banks (_) (_) 600 - - (_) (_)700 @5tb = Term Loan (+)from FIs/banks (_)- - 2,185 (_) (_)975 @5tb = Funding of (+)Interest (+) (FIs/banks) (_) (_) - 363 363 (_) (_)- @5tb = Total (_) (_) (_) (_) (MO)2,500 3,284 3,884 (_) (_)2,875 (D) ( 23 ) AS aforesaid, the BIFR on 9. 11. 1994 directed the promoters to confirm that they will contribute Rs. 1156 lakhs towards implementation of the scheme and furnish necessary guarantees for making goods any shortfall in the projected profits from the housing complex, and in addition bring in Rs. 650 lakhs to raise the level of Debt Service Cover Ratio (DSCR) to an acceptable figure of 1. 33. In response to this, though the petitioner confirmed the same by means of letter dated 22. 11. 1994, but the same was subject to the condition that for the seed money for proposed housing complex of Rs. 650 lakhs to raise the level of Debt Service Cover Ratio (DSCR) to an acceptable figure of 1. 33. In response to this, though the petitioner confirmed the same by means of letter dated 22. 11. 1994, but the same was subject to the condition that for the seed money for proposed housing complex of Rs. 600 crores, 70% of which will have to be contributed by financial institutions/banks and 30% will be contributed by promoters, and that no interest should be charged for the closure period i. e. from August, 1986 to March, 1997. However, these conditions were not acceptable to the Bank/financial institutions. ( 24 ) IT seems the petitioner was aware unless his request for waiver of interest for the aforesaid period, viz, during which the unit was not working was acceded, promoters would not be in a position to invest. On the other hand. Financial Institutions were not ready to waive such a huge interest. Hence, the Operating Agency did not accede to such condition. We do not find, nor was it pointed out that the financial institutions have the power to waive such interest. There is no provision under the statute under which this Court could direct waiver of interest which is admittedly payable by the petitioner ( 25 ) ANOTHER consideration which has weighed with the BIFR and AAIFR in passing the impugned orders is that in the draft rehabilitation report of the answering respondents, the DSCR of the petitioner company was only 63 after taking into account projected profits from the housing complex. The DSCR should be at an acceptable level of 1. 33 only if additional interest-free funds to the tune of Rs. 675 lakhs are brought in by the promoters. This admittedly was not done nor seems possible within the capacity of the petitioner. It is not disputed that DSCR of 1. 33 is the healthy level which has to be maintained by a unit for revival. It is the settled policy that if the DSCR is found to be 1. 33 or above an industrial company is viable and should be rehabilitated. However, this figure of. 63 DSCR level is challenged by stating that the said level as shown by the operating agency i. e. ICICI is not correct and that as per the said Operating Agency s projections the DSCR comes to. 92 and not. 63. 33 or above an industrial company is viable and should be rehabilitated. However, this figure of. 63 DSCR level is challenged by stating that the said level as shown by the operating agency i. e. ICICI is not correct and that as per the said Operating Agency s projections the DSCR comes to. 92 and not. 63. In any case this is much below 1. 33. The only contention is if the DSCR is calculated without taking into account the interest for the closure period, then the DSCR would be around 1. 50. This contention for the petitioner is again based on waiver of interest for the aforesaid closure period. As we have said, it is not possible for this Court to direct the respondents to waive the interest for the closure period. Hence, even on admitted facts, the DSCR level is much below than acceptable limit and there will be no feasibility or viability of the unit to revive. ( 26 ) LASTLY learned counsel for the petitioner then REFERRED TO to the last proposal made by the petitioner company in November, 1996. Respondents after considering this also found it to be not viable which is REFERRED TO in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 6. It is said that in February, 1994 estimated cost of the scheme was Rs. 2,300 lakhs, while in November, 1994, petitioner proposed through letter the cost to be Rs. 3,284 lakhs, but now curiously reduced the cost to Rs. 2,575 lakhs. It is averred by no yardstick the petitioner company could have reduced the cost by Rs. 709. 00 lakhs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the figure of Rs. 3284 lakhs was accepted by the company in view of the Operating Agency s report which is evident from the chart as aforesaid. In fact, the company s original proposal was Rs. 2,500 lakhs and in November, 1996 it was Rs. 2,875 lakhs, hence, there is an increase in the cost of the scheme. We do not find any substance in this argument as admittedly, the Operating Agency rejected proposal of the petitioner s company in February, 1994 at the cost figure of Rs. 2,500 lakhs was unrealistic, then how could there be any possibility of acceptance of the figure of Rs. 2,875 lakhs after expiry of more than two and half years. We do not find any substance in this argument as admittedly, the Operating Agency rejected proposal of the petitioner s company in February, 1994 at the cost figure of Rs. 2,500 lakhs was unrealistic, then how could there be any possibility of acceptance of the figure of Rs. 2,875 lakhs after expiry of more than two and half years. Respondent s case is analysing this cost of scheme on account of inflation in the cost of capital assets alone would bring the increase to approximately Rs. 400. 00 lakhs. Hence, for all these considerations we do not find any merits in the contentions raised for the petitioner. ( 27 ) IN this context we would like to refer to a Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in U. P. Financial Corporation and Others Vs. Maine Oxygen and Acetylene Gas Ltd. and Another (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 754) wherein the Hon ble Supreme held as under:- @subpara = 21. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Corporation is an independent autonomous statutory body having its own constitution and rules to abide by, and functions and obligations to discharge. As such, in the discharge of its functions, it is free to act according to its own light. The views it forms and the decision it takes are on the basis of information in its possession and the advice it receives and according to its own perspective and calculations. Unless its action is Malay fide, even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the Courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however more prudent, commercial or business like it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom (or lack of it) of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the Corporation liable. " ( 28 ) THIS Court cannot sit in Judgment nor scrutinise the figures just to find holes in the inferences drawn by the BIFR and AAIFR under the aforesaid Act. Where an expert body including Operating Agency s has scrutinised the matter, weighed it, considered it, even if it is possible to come to a different conclusion on the basis of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court would not exercise the present powers as an appellate jurisdiction. Where an expert body including Operating Agency s has scrutinised the matter, weighed it, considered it, even if it is possible to come to a different conclusion on the basis of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court would not exercise the present powers as an appellate jurisdiction. ( 29 ) FOR all these reasons, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners on the grounds raised are not sustainable. ( 30 ) WRIT petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner company is a sick unit, there will be no order as to costs.