LexM/S. DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·er MIS. DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. A v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 [C.K. THAKKER AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B .. Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964-ss. 3 & 22- Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Niyamavali, 1974-r.14-UP. Molasses Advisory Committee Rules, 1965-rr. 3 and 11: c Directive issued by Respondents under the Adhiniyam to sugar mills to reserve 20% of the molasses produced by them for supply to distilleries manufacturing country liquor-Applicability of-Held, not applicable in case of sugar mills not having 'balance stock' of molasses D i.e. molasses in excess of and not used for captive consumption -- _i, Respondents having no right to compel such sugar mills to supply 20% molasses for purpose of manufacturing country liquor. Provision in s.3 of the Adhiniyam enjoining the State Government to constitute an Advisory Committee to advise on matters relating to control of storage, preservation, gradation, price, supply and disposal E of molasses-Nature of-Held: Investment of power in the State Government is not merely enabling or discretionary-It is obligatory on the Government to constitute such a Committee to carry out the ~ purpose and object of the Adhiniyam-Doctrines-Doctrine of po we/ coupled with duty-Words and Phrases-"May" and "shall"- F Meaning of Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226-Alternative remedy-Policy decision taken by G State-Respondents issuing directive under the Adhiniyam to sugar -I, mills-Appellant-company having a sugar mill-It filed writ petition- Objection raised by Respondents on ground of availability of appeal under the Adhiniyam-Held: Rightly rejected by High Court-Once a policy decision has been taken by the Government, filing of appeal is 245 H 246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. A virtually an 'empty formality' or 'futile attempt '-Remedy of appeal could not be termed as 'alternative ',or 'equally efficacious '-Uttar Pradesh She era Niyantran Adhiniyam, .l 964-s. 9. B Article 47-State to endeavour to bring about prohibition-Point already concluded by Supreme Court-No opinion expressed Respondents issued directive under the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniy;l.m, 1964 (the Act) to sugar mills to reserve 20% of the molasses produced by them for supply to distilleries manufacturing country-made liquor. Appellant-company has a sugar c mill a.swell as a distillery. It filed writ petition before the High Court contending that though it was producing molasses, the entire production was captively consumed in its own distillery and since even that was not sufficient it imported molasses from other States as also other Countries. Appellant company contended that since it D did not have balance or extra stock of molasses for being supplied to distilleries for manufacturing country-made liquor, the Authorities could not compel it to supply molasses in terms of the said A.. Government directive and hence such action was improper, illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and violative of Articles 14and19(1)(g) of the Constitution as E also against public policy reflected in Article 47 of the Constitution. It was further contended that the State Government ought to have constituted an Advisory Committee under Section 3 of the Act before issuing such directive. F High Court though rejected the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents viz. availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Act, however, held that Section 3 of the Act was only directory and if Advisory Committee was not constituted by the State, the powers under the Act could be exercised by the G Controller appointed by the State. The Court further held that the reservation for 20% of molasses and directive issued to the Appellant to supply such stock for manufacturing country liquor was neither contrary to law nor against public policy and consequently dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. H Partly allowing the appeal, the Court M/S.DHAMPURSUGARMILLSLTD. v. STATEOFU.P. 247 --\-- HELD~ 1. As to alternative remedy available to the Appellant, A a finding has been recorded by the High Court in favour of the writ- petitioner and the same has not been challenged by the State before this Court. Even otherwise, from the record, it is clear that the decision has been taken by the Government. Obviously in such cases, remedy of appeal cannot b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.