JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. — Petitioner No. 1, M/s. IPISTEEL Limited is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 set up in the year 1983 and it is a Mini Steel Plant in the State of Orissa promoted jointly by the Private Promoters and IPICOL. The opp. party, Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (in short ‘CESCO’) is a Limited Company which is the monopoly licensee for retail supply of electricity in the central zone of Orissa and carries on such supply on the strength of the licence granted by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short ‘OERC’) constituted under the Orissa Electricity Re¬forms Act, 1995. Petitioner No. 1 - Company and petitioner No. 2, its Managing Director, have approached this Court in the present writ application for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. party to implement the revised Rehabilitation Scheme framed/approved by the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (in short ‘BIFR’) and to implement its order dated 5.11.2003 within a specific period. 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner M/s IPISTEEL Ltd. accumulated a loss exceeding the net worth of the Company as on 31st March, 1990 and becoming sick approached to the BIFR under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short ‘SICA’) for adopting suitable measures for rehabilitation. The BIFR after being satis¬fied declared the petitioner No. 1- Company as a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3 (o) of SICA. On 8.2.91 the BIFR approved the Rehabilitation Scheme with reference to petitioner No. 1- Company under Section 17(2) of SICA. The said approved Scheme could not be implemented and when the matter was reviewed on 28.7.94 by the BIFR, it appointed ICICI, the leading Financier, as the operating agency and directed petitioner No. 1 - Company to submit a draft Rehabilitation Scheme by 27.8.94. Subsequently on 17.10.95, the BIFR sanctioned the Rehabilitation Scheme of petitioner No. 1 - company and circulated the same for being implemented by the concerned participating agencies. The said Scheme provided various reliefs and concessions from differ¬ent agencies to be made available to petitioner No. 1 - company from the cut off date, i.e. 30.6.95. 3. Subsequently on 17.10.95, the BIFR sanctioned the Rehabilitation Scheme of petitioner No. 1 - company and circulated the same for being implemented by the concerned participating agencies. The said Scheme provided various reliefs and concessions from differ¬ent agencies to be made available to petitioner No. 1 - company from the cut off date, i.e. 30.6.95. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners in the writ application that due to delay in sanction of the reliefs and concessions by the participating agency the said Scheme could not be implemented in time and was again taken up for review by the BIFR on 15.7.97. On being satisfied with the reasons for non-implementation of the sanctioned Scheme, the BIFR directed the operating agency ICICI to prepare a modified Scheme extending the cut off date to 30.6.97. The draft modified Scheme prepared and submitted before the BIFR by the operating agency for considera¬tion was approved by the BIFR on 27.10.97 and was circulated amongst all the agencies. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that while implementing the Scheme the opp. party CESCO misinterpreted Clause 8 thereof and allowed the concession only during the break down and not for the entire period of rehabilitation as directed by the BIFR. When the matter was again reviewed by the BIFR in its meeting on 4.1.2001, further directions were issued to the participating agencies for giving the reliefs and concessions as per the order passed on that day. On such directions being given both the petitioner-company and the CESCO submitted their representations to the operating agency i.e. ICICI who on the basis of the same submitted its report before the BIFR in its letter dated 30.11.2001. Going through the same the BIFR passed orders on 19.6.2003 communicated by its letter dated 20.6.2003. The petitioners allege that in spite of such orders the CESCO without implementing the same filed an application before the BIFR for modification/clarification/review of the order dated 27.10.97 and subsequent order dated 19.6.2003. 5. It is further contended in the writ petition that the BIFR after review/reconsideration of the above application filed by the opp. The petitioners allege that in spite of such orders the CESCO without implementing the same filed an application before the BIFR for modification/clarification/review of the order dated 27.10.97 and subsequent order dated 19.6.2003. 5. It is further contended in the writ petition that the BIFR after review/reconsideration of the above application filed by the opp. party clarified that the reliefs and concessions envisaged in para 8(1) in Page 7 of the Rehabilitation Sanctioned Scheme and in para 5 (1) of the Board’s Order dated 19.6.2003, are meant for the entire period of rehabilitation and not re¬stricted to the periods appertaining to power cuts, break downs etc., and directed that the order dated 19.6.2003 should be implemented by the CESCO in its true spirit and compliance report thereof should be sent to the BIFR within 15 days. Copy of the order was communicated to the Chief Executive Officer, CESCO. The said directions having not been implemented the petitioners have filed the present writ application for the reliefs, as stated above. 6. The opp. party, CESCO has filed a counter affidavit and an additional affidavit. The sole point canvassed in the said affidavits is that challenging the orders dated 27.10.97, 19.6.2003 and 5.11.2003 the opp. party has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruc¬tion (in short ‘AAIFR’) under Section 27 of the SICA and notice of the said appeal has been issued by the Appellate Authority. The opp. party further contended in the counter that the present writ application is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA. 7. During the course of hearing of this writ application it was submitted on behalf of the opp. party that Appeal No. 449/2003 alongwith a stay application has been filed by the opp. party before the AAIFR and the same is posted to 29.6.2004 and they will obtain an order of stay by that date. This Court by order dated 12.5.2004 adjourned the case to 5.7.2004. Again on that date it was submitted on behalf of the opp. party that further time be granted to obtain the order of stay. The case was again adjourned to 9.8.2004. This Court by order dated 12.5.2004 adjourned the case to 5.7.2004. Again on that date it was submitted on behalf of the opp. party that further time be granted to obtain the order of stay. The case was again adjourned to 9.8.2004. On 9.8.2004 no stay order was pro¬duced and it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that granting further time would immensely prejudice the petitioners as the petitioner No. 1 - company is facing acute financial crisis and is unable to operate its plant. 8. Mr. Ashok Parija, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the opp. party CESCO is one of the participants before the BIFR and the matter after being reviewed on several occasions, the opp. party having been directed by the BIFR to implement the revised Rehabilitation Scheme sanctioned by BIFR, they are bound to comply with the order of the BIFR passed on 5.11.2003 with immediate effect. He further contended that mere filing of an appeal will not amount to stay of operation of the Revised Rehabilitation Scheme sanctioned by the BIFR and directions given in various orders passed by it. 9. Mr. B. K. Nayak, learned counsel for the opp. party vehemently argued that in view of the fact that the opp. party -CESCO has filed an appeal before the AAIFR, by applying the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the SICA, this writ application should be held to be not maintainable. Section 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is extracted hereunder : “22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. party -CESCO has filed an appeal before the AAIFR, by applying the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the SICA, this writ application should be held to be not maintainable. Section 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is extracted hereunder : “22. 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.” 10. We are afraid that the above Section in no way supports the proposition as contended by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the opp. party. The above provision prohibits proceedings for winding up of industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any properties of the industrial companies or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof or in a suit for recovery of money, enforcement of any security etc. except with the consent of the Board or the Appellate Authority. It is a well known principle of law that appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceeding or an order unless the Appellate Authority or Court passes an order of stay during the pendency of the appeal. except with the consent of the Board or the Appellate Authority. It is a well known principle of law that appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceeding or an order unless the Appellate Authority or Court passes an order of stay during the pendency of the appeal. This principle of law is also incorporated in the provisions of Rule 5 (1) of Order 41, CPC which stipulate that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason of only an appeal having been preferred from the decree. 11. In view of the undisputed facts involved in this case with regard to Rehabilitation Scheme and directions thereon issued by the BIFR directing the opp. party to grant reliefs and concessions to the petitioners - company by its orders passed on 27.10.97, 19.6.2003 and 5.11.2003 and even though the opp. party has preferred an appeal against the same, no stay order having been passed by the Appellate Authority we have no hesitation in allowing this writ application. 12. We, therefore, direct that the opp. party shall implement the Rehabilitation Scheme by granting the reliefs and concessions to the petitioners- company as directed therein by the BIFR, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 13. The writ application is allowed. But in the circum¬stances, without costs. A. K. PATNAIK, J. I agree. Application allowed.