ORDER 1. The following issues are framed: 1. Whether on 15-11-2000, when the existing State of Bihar was divided into two States of Bihar and Jharkhand, the status of Respondent 1 Company underwent any change in view of it being not included in the Ninth Schedule of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, which in turn is referable to Section 65 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act? 2. Whether any company which does not fall within the Ninth Schedule referable to Section 65 can be annexed or usurped by taking recourse to Section 47 of the Act? 3. Whether Section 47 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 is applicable to a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 despite Section 65 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 and consequently Tenughat Thermal Power Station at Lalpania would or would not vest in the successor State of Jharkhand? 4. Whether Section 47 envisages issuance of notification in respect of fait accompli with regard to any undertaking of the existing State of Bihar fulfilling the requirement as per Section 47 of the Act? 5. Whether Respondent 1 Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, was at all covered by the commonly known expression of "undertaking" which has not been defined in the Bihar Reorganisation Act? 6. Whether Section 46(3) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 applicable to the investments made by the erstwhile State of Bihar which in the present case is referable to the investments made in the shares of TVNL, postulates passing of such investments/shares of TVNL to the State in which the principal seat of business of the undertaking is located and consequently TVNL would or would not vest in the successor State of Bihar? 7. Whether the Central Government is legally competent to decide the issue of takeover of Respondent 1 Company, not named and included under any provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation Act? 8. Whether the impugned Notification issued on 27-2-2001, making amendment in the existing articles and memorandum of association, without approval of the Board of Directors of Respondent 1 Company and also without prior approval of the Registrar of the Companies, Bihar, Patna is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction? 9. Whether the Government of India failed to issue directions in exercise of its power under Section 63 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act? 10. 9. Whether the Government of India failed to issue directions in exercise of its power under Section 63 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act? 10. Whether the Order dated 31-10-2002 passed by the Government of India holding that the assets and liabilities relating to TVNL passed to the successor State of Jharkhand under Section 47 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 is illegal and invalid? 11. Whether the Notifications of the Government of Jharkhand dated 27-2-2001 and 24-5-2001 are null and void as well as without jurisdiction? 12. Whether under Section 47 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, the Tenughat Thermal Power Station at Lalpania would not vest in the successor State of Jharkhand? 13. Whether under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. would not vest in the successor State of Jharkhand? 14. Whether Tenughat Thermal Power Station is not an "undertaking of the erstwhile State of Bihar" within the meaning of and for the purpose of Section 47 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000? 15. Whether the Notifications of the Government of Jharkhand dated 27-2-2001 and 24-5-2001 are null and void as well as without jurisdiction? 16. Whether the Order dated 31-10-2002 passed by the Government of India holding that the assets and liabilities relating to Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. passed to the successor State of Jharkhand under Section 47 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, is not legal and valid? 2. The plaintiff and the defendants to file witness schedule, if any, and file the documents or affidavit within a period of six weeks. Counter, if any, in the special leave petitions may be filed in the meantime. Court Masters