ORDER
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. By filing this writ under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of impugned demand raised by the respondent Board dated 13-4-1993 (Annexure P-12) totalling Rs. 30,75,063.06 and Rs. 11,13,534.60 towards consumption of electricity charges.
2. In para 11 of the petition, as also in ground No. 5, it is averred that petitioners unit has become a sick unit by the BIFR under the provisions of SICA and, hence, the impugned demand is bad in law and cannot be given effect to.
3. Heard Shri B. Pandya, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri S.S. Garg, the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The only submission that was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner was based on the aforementioned pleading and the ground. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner has been declared as sick unit as has been pleaded in writ and not denied and, hence, the impugned demand is bad in law and cannot be given effect of.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find obsolutely no merit in the writ nor in the submission ma.de. Mere averment in the petition on such issue is not sufficient. What is material is that petitioner in order to claim any benefit of Section 22 must file the copy of order passed by the BIFR, and show on what date, the reference was registered and on what date, the inquiry commenced and on what date, the final order was passed by the BIFR so that this Court can examine as to whether the petitioner is actually declared sick or not and if so, whether they are entitled to get the benefit of Section 22 ?
6. As observed supra, since petitioner has not filed any documents relating to the BIFR proceedings, the submission made has no foundation to urge. Indeed the argument cannot be built up without there being any documents. I fail to appreciate the worth of such submission and citing several decisions of this issue by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only submission, therefore, made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no basis, and is, accordingly, rejected.
7. There being no other issue urged for assailing the demand impugned, I find no merit in the writ. It merits dismissal. Even otherwise, none of the grounds raised in the petition has any basis and cannot be successfully
pressed.
8. In view of aforesaid discussion, petition fails and is dismissed. As a consequences, all interim orders are vacated.
9. No costs.