LexM/S. DHAMPUR SUGAR (KASHIPUR) LTD. versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
f MIS. DHAMPUR SUGAR (KASHIPUR) LTD. A y v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 [C.K. THAKKER AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B Administrative Law: Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966; Clauses 3, 4, 6, 7and11/Uttar c Pradesh Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953; Clauses 3, 4, 6 and 7 and Ss. 12, 14 and 15: Sugar Policy-Authorities rejecting the application for grant of Licence filed by respondent No. 4-Manufacturer of rah from sugarcane-State Government modified the policy relaxing certain D limitations-Fresh application filed by the respondent was allowed by the Licensing Authority-Challenged by appellant-manufacturer of Sugar on ground that the Unit of respondent fell in reserved area where his Sugar mill is located-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Grant of Licence is 'rule' and rejection 'exception '-Since the policy E was modified, grant of Licence to respondent No. 4 by imposing several conditions by the authority could not be objected by the appellant- By imposing conditions, Authorities have protected interests of all parties/Sugar manufacturers-Neither statutory provisions violated • nor Policy guidelines were infringed-Authorities as well as the F >- Government after satisfying themselves that the new Unit of the respondent would not affect adequate supply of Sugar to appellant's Sugar mill-Then only exercise power of relaxation and granted Licence-Authorities granted Licence in terms of provisions of Law- The Order was confirmed by the State Government-The Order so G confirmed by the State Government is final -Thus, statutory finality is attached to the Order-Though, such a statutory finality does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court /Supreme Court-But by exercising such power, High Court/Supreme Court would not substitute its own decision for th~ decision taken by the authorities, which is final 199 H 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. A under the relevant law-Once it is held that the Government has power to frame and reframe; charge/recharge, such action cannot be declared illegal, arbitrary or ultra vires the Constitution-Allegations of mala fide by appellant raises a question of fact, therefore, should be supported by material particulars -In the instant case, no such B material has been placed on record-Hence the contention of mala fide, as alleged by the appellant, cannot be upheld--High Court was right in dismissing the petition of the appellant by observing that the change of Policy was not limited to the case of respondent No.4 in granting Licence since it was applied uniformly to one and all--Hence, C on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, High Court was right in not interfering with the order passed by the authorities and as confirmed by the State Government-Essential Commodities Act, 1955-S.3-Gur (Regulations of Use) Order, 1968; Clause 3. D E Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 136 or 226: Grant of Licence to respondent No. 4-manufacturer of rah from sugarcane-Interest of applicant-manufacturer of sugar-Effect on- Held: It is a question of fact, which could be raised by the appellant before the authorities-It cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 136 or Article 226 of the Constitution. Words and Phrases: 'Sugar cane '-Meaning of in the context ofS 2(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955_ F 'Controlled industries '-Meaning of in the context of the G Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. 'Factory', Khandsari sugar', Khandsari unit', 'Crusher', 'Power Crusher', 'Procedure of Khandsari sugar' and 'Reserved area'- Meaning of in the context of Sugar cane (Control) Order, 1966. 'Assigned area '-Meaning of in the context of the Licensing Order, )' 196? AppcHant-Company is engaged in the manufacture, sale and supply of sugar. One Mis. Indian Glycols Limited-respondent no. 4 H y M/S.DHAMPURSUGAR(KASHIPUR)LTD.v. STATEOF 201 UTTARANCHAL submitted an application for grant of licence for Power Driven A Crusher to start a new Unit for the manufacture of rah from sugarcane. The application was rejected by the authorities. The State Governmentvide its order dated Novem her 15, 2003 modified its earlier sugar policy empowering the Government to relax the limitation laid down in para (ka) of the Government Order in certain B cases. Respondent No. 4 submitted a fresh application for grant of licence for rah manufacturing unit, which was allowed b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.