M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned recovery certificate dated 20. 6. 2002 (Annexure-1 to the petition) for Rs. 47,52,683. 55p. ( 2 ) KRISHNA Synthetics Ltd. is a limited liability company and the petitioners at the relevant time were its Directors and Guarantors of the loan. The Company has approached the Board of Industrial and Finance Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. ( 3 ) IN paragraph 7 of the petition it is stated that the Board of Industrial and Finance Reconstruction had registered the reference of the petitioner, but rejected the reference vide order dated 3. 9. 2000 on the ground that the petitioner is a small scale industrial undertaking vide Annexure-2 to the petition. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority for Industrial and Finance Reconstruction, and the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 3. 9. 2000 passed by the Board of Industrial and Finance Reconstruction and remanded the case to it for a fresh hearing to it. A true copy of the appellate order dated 12. 11. 2001 is Annexure-3 to the petition. The matter is still pending before the Board of Industrial and Finance Reconstruction. The petitioners have challenged the notice of demand dated 2. 2. 2002 invoking personal guarantee executed on 26-3-1991 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner sent a reply dated 5. 3. 2002 vide Annexure 5 to the petition. 11. 2001 is Annexure-3 to the petition. The matter is still pending before the Board of Industrial and Finance Reconstruction. The petitioners have challenged the notice of demand dated 2. 2. 2002 invoking personal guarantee executed on 26-3-1991 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner sent a reply dated 5. 3. 2002 vide Annexure 5 to the petition. ( 5 ) THE petitioners have relied on Section 22 of the Act, which states:-"suspension of legal proceedings, contracts etc.-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, 1 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. " ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Patheja Bros. Forgings and Stamping v. I. C. I. C. I. and has contended that no recovery can be issued to a guarantor in view of the bar of Section 22. ( 7 ) IN our opinion the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is distinguishable, and hence we cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) IT may be noted that Section 22 of the Act only bars a suit for recovery against e guarantor, and the aforesaid decision of the Supreme court also stated that no suit for recovery will lie against the guarantor. ( 8 ) IT may be noted that Section 22 of the Act only bars a suit for recovery against e guarantor, and the aforesaid decision of the Supreme court also stated that no suit for recovery will lie against the guarantor. In the present case there is no suit filed against the petitioner and hence we fail to see as to how the petitioner can get any benefit from the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court or from Section 22 of the Act. ( 9 ) THE matter may also be considered from another angle. The object of the Sick Industrial Companies Act is to attempt rehabilitation of a sick industry. Stay of recovery against a guarantor can hardly be said to help in rehabilitation of a sick industry. Hence also we are of the opinion that petitioner cannot get any benefit of the Sick Industrial Companies Act. ( 10 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the repondent No. 1 and in paragraph 4 of the same it has been stated that the experience of the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment corporation of U. P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to PICUP) has been very discouraging. A copy of the statement of the status of cases and the amounts involved therein has been annexed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit. A perusal of the same shows that the sum total of dues from Industrial concerns which had borrowed loan from PICUP but which cannot be recovered due to pendency of cases before BIFR and AAIFR is about Rs. 445. 62 crores. Cases pending before the BIFR and AAIFR are ranging from the year 1987, that is to say from more than 15 years, and are still pending there, and hence PICUP is unable to recover its dues. ( 11 ) IN paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that hundreds of cases of picup have gone to BIFR and AAIFR but none of the units could be revived by the Board. The bitter experience of PICUP in these cases has been that Industrial concerns and their guarantors used these proceedings as an umbrella against the lawful recovery measures of financial institutions due to which huge public dues get blocked for decades. This has resulted in a situation where the financial institutions have themselves come to the uerge of getting bankrupt. The bitter experience of PICUP in these cases has been that Industrial concerns and their guarantors used these proceedings as an umbrella against the lawful recovery measures of financial institutions due to which huge public dues get blocked for decades. This has resulted in a situation where the financial institutions have themselves come to the uerge of getting bankrupt. In view of the blockage of these huge amounts of money running into hundred or thousands of crores of rupees the growth of industries in our economy has been adversely affected. If these amounts had been recovered they would have been advanced to new industrial units which would have resulted in employment, industrialization and prosperity of the State. ( 12 ) PICUP is only a State Financial institution, which grants medium size loans. If PICUP loans of Rs. 445. 00 crores cannot be recovered due to Section 22, there must be thousands of crores of loans of bigger, national level financial institutions (e. g. IFCI, IC1ci, IDBI, etc.) which have become similarly irrecoverable. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Sick Industrial Companies act has failed to achieve its aim and object for which it was enacted. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit it is stated that PICUP at its meeting held on 26-3-1990 had sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 90. 00 Lac to the Company vide letter of intent issued to the Company on 12. 4. 1990 and the same was intimated. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the Company failed to repay its dues and thus PICUP had sanctioned a package of concession and relief to the Company vide its letter dated 14. 6. 2000. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-CA-3 to the counter affidavit. However, as stated in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, no sincere efforts have been made to get the rehabilitation package sanctioned. In paragraph 28 it is stated that the petitioners re guarantors of the loan. Copy of the bond of guarantee is annexed as Annexure-CA-4 to the counter affidavit. ( 13 ) SINCE Section 22 does not stay recovery against a guarantor, unless it is in pursuance of a suit, there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. In paragraph 28 it is stated that the petitioners re guarantors of the loan. Copy of the bond of guarantee is annexed as Annexure-CA-4 to the counter affidavit. ( 13 ) SINCE Section 22 does not stay recovery against a guarantor, unless it is in pursuance of a suit, there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( 14 ) BEFORE concluding we may add that in this case by interim order dated 19-7-2002 we had observed:-"heard Sri S. C. Tripathi for petitioners, Sri Avnish Misra for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel. Petitioners are challenging the impugned recovery and one of the grounds taken by the petitioners who are guarantors of the loan is that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act 1985 (in short the Act ). We are of the opinion that prima facie the Act is unconstitutional and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Act gives protection to the rich businessmen by staying the recovery against them whenever they bring their company before the BIFR. The poor people of the country do not get any such protection against their recoveries. For example if a poor peasant has taken a loan for seeds, fertilizer etc. and if his crop fails e. g. for lack of monsoons, recovery is issued against him and his land is sold in pursuance of the recovery and even his personal assets may be sold, but this will not be done with regard to companies because they can go to BIFR and get protection of Section 22 of the Act. One can understand giving protection to the poor and weak people, but the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions)act, 1985 does just the reverse, by giving protection to the rich in respect of recoveries against them, while no such protection is available to the poor people in respect of recoveries against them. This is prima facie in our opinion highly discriminatory against the poor people of the country. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the Union of India. Learned Counsel for Union of India will intimate the learned-Attorney General of India about this order. Lis; on 12. 8. 2002 before us by which time parties may exchange affidavits. This is prima facie in our opinion highly discriminatory against the poor people of the country. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the Union of India. Learned Counsel for Union of India will intimate the learned-Attorney General of India about this order. Lis; on 12. 8. 2002 before us by which time parties may exchange affidavits. " ( 15 ) UNFORTUNATELY when the case was taken up for hearing no one appeared for the Union of India. However, we are not deciding the question of Constitutional validity of the Sick Industrial Companies Act as the petition is being decided on other points. However, we do recommend to the Central Government to consider repeal of the aforesaid Act since in our opinion it has not served any useful purpose, rather it has served the unscrupulous businessmen who merely by filing a reference before the BIFR get recovery stayed under Section 22 and in this way workers are not paid their wages, the Government is not paid their taxes, and financial institutions cannot recover their loans. ( 16 ) THE scheme of the Constitution is that while there should be equality among the people, the weaker and poor section of the society should be helped. Thus the Constitution permits making special laws in favour of the weaker sections such as the Schedule Castes, vide Article 15 (4) and 16 (4), women vide Article 15 (3) etc. The Sick Industrial Companies Act, as observed in our order dated 19. 7. 2002, does just the reverse, namely, benefiting the rich and the prosperous. It is well known that often unscrupulous businessmen transfer the funds of their own company to some secret account and only when the husk of the Company remains they transfer it to BIFR and thus the workers, the Government, financial institutions etc. suffer. Moreover, hundreds, if not thousands, of crores of dues of banks etc. have been held up because of Section 22 of the aforesaid Act and in this way financial Institutions and banks also suffer. We therefore, recommend to the Central/government to consider repeal of the Sick Industrial Companies Act as it does not seem to have served any purpose, rather it has done a lot of mischief. have been held up because of Section 22 of the aforesaid Act and in this way financial Institutions and banks also suffer. We therefore, recommend to the Central/government to consider repeal of the Sick Industrial Companies Act as it does not seem to have served any purpose, rather it has done a lot of mischief. ( 17 ) LET Registrar General of this Court send a copy of this order to the Union Law Secretary, New Delhi, the Secretary, Company Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi, and the Chairman Law Commission of India, New Delhi forthwith. Petition dismissed. .