JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J.- This company petition was registered on the recommendation of B.I.F.R. in the year, 1996. M/s Kumardhubi Metal Casting & Engineering Ltd. (KMCEL for short), the company under liquidation, was a joint venture company of Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation, a Government of Bihar undertaking (BSIDC for short) and M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO for short). The share holding was 50.7 and 49.3 respectively. On 17.8.1999, the order of winding up of KMCEL was passed by this Court. The assets of the company under liquidation were in possession of the secured creditor-Bank of India which was ultimately taken over by the Official Liquidator in February, 2006. 2. On the insistence of BSIDC, the valuation of assets and invitation of claims was deferred from time to time in this case. 3. The BSIDC brought revival package prepared by one consultant, namely, Varrenyam Consultants Pvt. Ltd. engaged by BSIDC. The Official Liquidator indicated shortcomings in the said revival package by report dated 31.3.2009 (at Flag-38). The relevant portion of the order dated 6.11.2009 reads as follows:- The Official Liquidator has filed a reply to the revival package on 1.4.2009 (Flag 38). He has indicated shortcomings in the revival package. . On going through the materials on record, when t indicated that the objections to the revival package raised by the Official Liquidator are tenable and such revival package will not be in the interest to anybody, Mr. Rajesh Kumar submitted that BSIDC will find out a strategic partner and will settle the terms with such partner for revival, proceeding in view of the objections raised by the Official Liquidator in the said report and will file an affidavit sworn by the Chairman of the BSIDC and authorized representative of the strategic partner." 4. Now it is said by BSIDC that pursuant to the advertisement inviting tender from interested parties for revival of KMCEL, five offers were received.. Out of which, the offer of BESCO Engineering and Services Private Ltd. (BESCO for short) of Rs.2.40 Crores as annual lease rent was found highest and accordingly, BSIDC and BESCO have finalized the revival package and are proceeding to prepare a draft lease. 5. Out of which, the offer of BESCO Engineering and Services Private Ltd. (BESCO for short) of Rs.2.40 Crores as annual lease rent was found highest and accordingly, BSIDC and BESCO have finalized the revival package and are proceeding to prepare a draft lease. 5. It is submitted orally by learned counsel, appearing for BSIDC and BESCO (intervener) that the lease rent for three years will be paid in advance to liquidate the dues of the Bank under one time settlement and the dues and disputes, if any, with the association of the workmen and other creditors wilt be settled, if this winding up proceeding is stayed. ." 6. Mrs. M.M. Pal, leaned Senior Counsel, appearing for the workmen supported the stand of BSIDC and BESCO. 7. Mr. A. Allam, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Bank of India submitted that the Bank is only interested in getting back its dues. He further submitted that BSIDC got this case lingering since 1996 during which the Bank has incurred crores of rupees against security expenses which is more than Rs. One Lakh per month now. . 8. Mr. Lakhan Sharma, appearing for the Official Liquidator, on the other hand, submitted that the proposed revival scheme between the BSIDC and BESCO is not in the interest of the contributories, secured creditors including the Bank, the workmen and others. He further referred to the order dated 12.8.2010 passed in Company Appeal No.2 of 2010 Rajiv Sachdeva vs. Rajhans Steel Ltd. (in liquidation) through the Official Liquidator and others. 9. In reply, the learned counsel, appearing for BSIDC and BESCO and the workmen submitted that an S.L.P. is contemplated against the said judgment of Rajiv Sachdeva (supra). It was further submitted that in the case of M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., this Court proceeded with the reviv21 package submitted by the Central Government and the State Government and therefore in this case, also BSIDC and BESCO may be allowed to proceed with the revival scheme. 10. After considering the entire matter, I am not inclined to allow' the proposed revival scheme offered by BSIDC with BESCO mainly for the following reasons. The assets of the company under liquidation includes a valuable and strategic land to the extent of 165 Acres near Kumardhubi Railway Station with all infrastructural facilities. 10. After considering the entire matter, I am not inclined to allow' the proposed revival scheme offered by BSIDC with BESCO mainly for the following reasons. The assets of the company under liquidation includes a valuable and strategic land to the extent of 165 Acres near Kumardhubi Railway Station with all infrastructural facilities. As per the proposed scheme, BESCO is going to pay a very meager amount of Rs.2.40, Crores per annum as rent and the lease period is proposed as 66 years which will be for all practical purposes a perpetual lease. The, company under liquidation was closed in the year, 1995. The B.I.F.R. failed to get the company revived. Even BSIDC and TISCO could not revive it for all these fifteen years. The State Government has also filed IA. Nos. 3207 and 3208 of 2010 for intervention claiming the dues of the State Government. The Central Excise Department has also filed a proof of affidavit of dues of about Rs.80 Lakhs with the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator has informed that the exact up to date liability is not known unless the claims are invited from the creditors in terms of Section 528 of the• Companies Act by publication of notice inviting claims. The proposed settlement of dues and dispute's with the workmen is absolutely vague and general as nothing specific has been brought on record. It is not understood how the settlement has been done with the purported association of workmen. Nothing concrete has been shown as to how the dues of J.S.E.B. to the tune of Rs.2 Crores and the dues of Damodar Valley Corporation to the tune of Rs.4.66 Crores would be settled. It further appears from the report of the Chartered Accountant that even the gross liability of KMCEL on the date of winding up was shown as more than 27 Crores and that too in the absence of vital informations for the period of 1.4.1995 to 17.8.1999. From the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the BESCO, it appears that its net worth is only about Rs.38.81 Crores. 11. From the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the BESCO, it appears that its net worth is only about Rs.38.81 Crores. 11. Moreover, in the judgment of Rajiv Sachdeva (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, inter alia, considered the scheme of SICA and the Companies Act including the judgments of the Supreme Court and, inter alia, held as follows:- "19 We may also point out here that accepting the contention of the appellant that it is open to the promoters or the company or other persons to continuously pester the Company Judge with one after another scheme of rehabilitation would result in indefinite stalling of the winding up proceedings to the detriment of the creditors and workers by depleting the resources of the sick company under winding up, by passage of time. 22. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case •of Meghlal Homes (P) Ltd. Vs. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti and Others, reported in (2007)7 SCC 753 has been relied upon from the side of the appellant. That case which was decided by the Supreme Court arose out of a 'creditors winding up petition', and not on the recommendation of the. BIFR under the SICA. While considering the creditors winding up petition the Court is not mandated to wind up a company. The (Company Judge) Court has to be convinced that it is "Just and equitable" that the company should be wound up. Several factars have to be taken into consideration by the Company Judge in such matters including the interest of the workers and other creditors. However, even in the decision cited the Supreme Court has cautioned that while considering a scheme or arrangement in terms of Sections 391 to 394A and Section 466 the Court has to see the ban a fides of the scheme and to ensure that the scheme which has to be forwarded is not a ruse to dispose of the assets of the company in liquidation and whether such proposal satisfied the elements of public interest and commercial morality. The Supreme Court has further said that if the Court finds the scheme to be a ruse to dispose of the assets by a private arrangement, then it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the properties of the company in liquidation, realize the assets and distribute the same in accordance with law. 28. The Supreme Court has further said that if the Court finds the scheme to be a ruse to dispose of the assets by a private arrangement, then it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the properties of the company in liquidation, realize the assets and distribute the same in accordance with law. 28. In view of what has been stated above we are of the opinion that the learned Company Judge was right in refusing to consider sanctioning the scheme of rehabilitation submitted before it in that winding up proceedings, where the winding up order had been passed an the recommendation of the BIFR, which recommendation had attained finality and which recommendation was binding upon the- Company Judge in view of Section 20(2) of the SICA, and who was bound to proceed with the winding up of the company in view of the legislative mandate in Section 20(2) of the SICA." 12. It may also be noted that in the present case, no proceeding has been taken under Sections 391 to 394A of the Companies Act under which different procedures have to be followed. 13. Thus it is apparent that the scheme brought forward by BSIDC with BESCO supported by the alleged work-men's association is not in the interest of any stakeholder, The assets and liabilities of the company under liquidation has not been valued/ascertained till date at the request and insistence of BSIDC to revive the company under liquidation. The grant of lease for 66 years at the rate of Rs.2.40 Crores to BESCO is like selling huge assets of the company (having strategic and valuable land to the extent of 165 Acres with infrastructural facilities) for peanuts. There appears to be lack of commercial morality in the proposed transaction between BSIDC and BESCO, 14. In the result, the revival scheme in question brought by BSIDC with BESCO is rejected, All the Interlocutory Applications, Reports and Affidavits, filed in this connection, stand disposed of. 15. As suggested by Mr. Lakhan Sharma, appearing for the Official Liquidator, Mr. Mukesh Agrawal, valuer, Ranchi is appointed as valuer. The Official Liquidator will settle the fees with him subject to approval by this Court. 16. The local Administration, i.e., the concerned Deputy Commissioner, the Superintendent of Police, the Officer-in-Charge, Kumardhubi Police Station and the Circle Officer, etc. 15. As suggested by Mr. Lakhan Sharma, appearing for the Official Liquidator, Mr. Mukesh Agrawal, valuer, Ranchi is appointed as valuer. The Official Liquidator will settle the fees with him subject to approval by this Court. 16. The local Administration, i.e., the concerned Deputy Commissioner, the Superintendent of Police, the Officer-in-Charge, Kumardhubi Police Station and the Circle Officer, etc. are directed to assist and facilitate the Official Liquidator and the Valuer in completing the work of valuation. The Bank of India will also fully cooperate with the Official Liquidator and will provide all details about lands, etc. The Official Liquidator will submit it's report alongwith Valuer's report within six weeks in sealed' cover. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr, Lakhan Sharma, counsel for the Official Liquidator.