JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In these two civil revision applications, between the same parties, a common question of law has been raised and therefore, these applications are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 15.4.98 and 9.6.98 passed by Sub-Judge, Bokaro at Chas, whereby he rejected the application filed by the petitioner for stay of further proceeding in Title (Mortgage) Suit No. 60/95. The plaintiff-opposite party instituted the aforementioned suit against the defendants/petitioners seeking a decree under Order 34 Rule 4 CPC and also for a money decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.806308/- and for other reliefs. The fact of the case in short is that the petitioner no.2, who is one of the Directors of petitioner no.1, approached the plaintiff for loan accommodation for running the business of the company and the plaintiff sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs. 9.00 lacs and also cash credit bill, limit loan of Rs. 1.00 lac. The defendant accordingly 'deposited sale deed and created equitable mortgage and further executed documents for repayment of the loan as also the cash credit amount. It appears that when the defendants violated all the terms and conditions and failed to liquidate the entire outstanding amount, the plaintiff tiled the suit. The defendants/petitioners appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. However, during the pendency of the suit the defendants-petitioners filed a petition praying therein for stay of the proceeding of the suit on the ground that the defendant company has been declared as sick unit by the Government of India, Industry Department by letter dated 28.6.97. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff opposite party by filing a rejoinder. The court below, after hearing the parties, rejected the said petition on 15.4.98 holding that the defendants-petitioner company has not been declared as sick industry by the authority and in accordance with the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The court below further held that photo copy of the said letter does not bear the seal and signature of the authority concerned and, therefore, the said letter cannot be relied upon. This order is impugned in C.R. No. 319/98(R). The court below further held that photo copy of the said letter does not bear the seal and signature of the authority concerned and, therefore, the said letter cannot be relied upon. This order is impugned in C.R. No. 319/98(R). The petitioners, thereafter, filed another petition on 14.5.98 making the same prayer for stay of the proceeding of the aforementioned Mortgage Suit on the ground that the petitioner was out of station and he could not be able to file letter no.481 dated 19.1.98 before the order was passed. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the letter dated 19.1.98 the petitioner has been declared as sick unit. The said petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a rejoinder. The court below, after hearing the parties, rejected the said petition by order dated 9.6.98 on the same ground, by which earlier petition was rejected. This order is impugned in C.R. No. 325/98(R). 3. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, assailed the impugned orders as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (herein-after referred to as 'the said Act'). According to the learned counsel the court below has erred in law in holding that the Industrial Department of the State Government has no power or jurisdiction• to declare the company as sick unit and the power is only vested in the appropriate Board. Learned counsel drew my attention to a copy of the letter dated 19.1.98 and submitted that by the said letter the petitioner-industry has been registered as a sick unit. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-opposite party, submitted that the case of the petitioner-company has neither been taken up by the authority under the aforesaid Act of 1985 nor any order has been passed or any resolution has been taken by the Board constituted under the Act. According to the learned counsel, the court below has, therefore, rightly rejected the prayer of the defendant-petitioner for stay of further proceeding of the suit. 5. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it would be useful to look into the provisions of the aforesaid Act. According to the learned counsel, the court below has, therefore, rightly rejected the prayer of the defendant-petitioner for stay of further proceeding of the suit. 5. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it would be useful to look into the provisions of the aforesaid Act. From the preamble of the Act, it transpires that for the purpose of prevention and revival of sick industry and also with a view to secure the timely detection of sick and potentially sick company, the Central Government has enacted the aforesaid Act. The said Act empowers the Central Government to establish a Board for industrial and financial reconstruction. Section 4 of the Act provides that the Central Government may, by notification, establish a Board which will exercise jurisdiction and powers and discharge the functions and duties conferred or imposed on the Board by or under the Act. The Board shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two and more than fourteen other Members, to be appointed by the Central Government. Section 5 empowers the Central Government to constitute an appellate authority for hearing appeals against the orders of the Board under the Act. Sections 6 to 14 lays down the provisions with regard to appointment, terms and conditions and power and functions of the authorities under the Act. Section 15 provides that where an industrial company has become a sick industrial company, the Board of Directors of the Company shall, within sixty days from the date of finalisation of the duly audited accounts of the company, make a reference to the Board for determination of the measures which shall be adopted with respect to the company. On such reference being made the Board has been empowered under Section 16 of the Act to make such enquiry as it may deem fit for determining whether any industrial company has become a sick industrial company. Section 17 provides that after making enquiry as provided under Section 16 of the Act if the Board is satisfied that a company has become a sick industrial company, it shall decide as to whether it is practicable for the company to make its net-worth exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable time. Section 17 provides that after making enquiry as provided under Section 16 of the Act if the Board is satisfied that a company has become a sick industrial company, it shall decide as to whether it is practicable for the company to make its net-worth exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable time. The Board, therefore, shall take appropriate decision and the provisions of Sections 16 to 21 will follow either for rehabilitation of the company by giving financial assistance or for winding up of sick industrial company. Section 22 lays down the provisions for suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc., which is' a relevant provision so far the instant case is concerned. 6. Section 22 reads as under : "Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc.-(1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding-up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority ........" 7. From reading of the entire provisions of the Act including Section 22, it is manifest that in case any enquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration by the Board or any appeal under Section 25 is pending, then certain proceedings against the sick industrial company are to be suspended or presumed to be suspended. The relevant provisions of the Act has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Gram Panchayat and another vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Work Ltd. & ors., reported in (1990) 2 SCC 440 and their Lordships have observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under :- "Section 22(1) provides that in case the enquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration by the Board or any appeal under Section 25 is pending then certain proceedings against the sick industrial company are to be suspended or presumed to be suspended. The nature of the proceedings which are automatically suspended are: (1) Winding up of the industrial company; (2) Proceedings for execution, distress or the like against the properties of sick industrial company; and (3) Proceedings for the appointment of receiver. The proceedings in respect of these matters could, however, be continued against the sick industrial company with the consent or approval of the Board or of the appellate authority as the case may be. Section 16 authorises the Board to make such enquiry as it may deem fit for determining whether any industrial company has become a sick industrial company. Where Board is satisfied that a company has become a sick industrial company, it could give a reasonable time to the company to make its net worth positive (Section 17(2). Where it is not practicable for sick industrial company to make its net worth positive within a reasonable time, Section 17(3) steps in authorising the Board to direct any operating agency to prepare a scheme in relation to the company. The Board may specify the various measures to be considered by the operating agency. These measures are detailed out in Section 18. The operating agency has to prepare a scheme as per the order specified by the Board." 8. In the instant case, the defendant/petitioner has not stated anywhere in the revision petitions that the Board of Directors of the petitioner-company referred the matter to the Board constituted under the Act for making an enquiry and for declaring the petitioner-company as sick industry. The letter dated 19.1.98 is the only basis for claiming stay of the proceeding of the suit. From perusal of letter no. The letter dated 19.1.98 is the only basis for claiming stay of the proceeding of the suit. From perusal of letter no. 481 dated 19.1.98, it transpires that the said letter was issued by the Industry Department, Government of Bihar, whereby the petitioner-company has been registered as sick unit. The said letter appears to have been issued by the Director of Industries, Government of Bihar. There is no reference in the said letter about any enquiry or any decision taken by the Board under the aforesaid Act. On the basis of that letter the petitioner is not entitled for the stay of the suit under the provisions of Section 22 of the said Act. The court below has, therefore, rightly held that merely on the basis of a letter issued by the Industry Department, Government of Bihar, the proceeding of the suit cannot be stayed under Section 22 of the said Act. As noticed above, the Industry Department of the State Government has no authority under the aforesaid Act to pass any order or take any decision under the said Act and that being so, the proceeding of the suit cannot be stayed under Section 22 of the said Act. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that the court below has not committed any illegality in exercise of his jurisdiction and there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below. 10. In the result, there is no merit in these two revision applications which are accordingly dismissed.