M/S. KURALI KHANDSARI UDYOG versus EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLER OF MOLASSES, U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 20-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. KURALI KHANDSARI UDYOG 
A 
v. 
EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLER OF MOLASSES, U.P. 
AND ORS. 
APRIL 20, 2004 
B 
[S.N. VARIA VA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
U.P. Sheera Niyantran Niyamawa/i, 1974: 
Rule 24 -Restriction on transport of "any molasses" without permission- C 
Challenged by manufacturers of khandsari molasses-Held, the term "any 
molasses" means any molasses and not just molasses manufactured by process 
of vacuum panning-Such regulatory measure, neither without jurisdiction 
nor in excess of rule making power-Such a restriction could always be imposed 
by virtue of Article 162 of the Constitution-It does not impose unreasonable D 
restriction and cannot be said to be violative of Article 19(/)(g) of the 
Constitution-UP. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964-ss. 2(d) and 22-
Constitution of India-Articles 19(/)(g) and 162. 
In pursuance of Rule 24 of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Niyamawali, 
1974 (the Rules), framed by State Government in exercise of power under E 
s.22 of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (the Act), the 
Controller of Molasses issued orders restricting transport of "any 
molasses" without permission. The appellant-manufacturer of Khandsari 
molasses challenged the said orders by filing a writ petition which was 
dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the manufacturer filed the F 
present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the Act, in view of definition 
of molasses as contained in s.2(d) thereof, applied to vacuum pan molasses; 
and Rule 24 so far as it sought to place restrictions on possession, purchase 
or transport of molasses could only apply to molasses prepared by process G 
of vacuum panning and not to khandsari molasses as Rule 24 could not 
exceed the provisions of the Act. It was further contended that the orders 
issued by the Controller of Molasses were restrictive of the right of 
freedom of trade as guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution; 
and the proper course was to keep a close check in the sugar mills premises 
413 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A itself and by verifying at the premises receiving such molasses. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Keeping a watch on the premises may be one method of 
control. However, requiring transporters to take permission is also a 
B method of control. Such regulatory measure do not impose unreasonable . 
restriction and cannot be challenged on the ground that they affect the 
right to carry on trade ·as guaranteed under Article l 9(l)(g) of the 
Constitution of India. (417-A-B) 
2. It cannot be said that the orders passed by the Controller of 
C Molasses are without jurisdiction and in excess of the rule making power. 
The purpose of the Act is to control vacuum panned molasses. In order 
to achieve this object it would be necessary to regulate movement of any 
molasses. Thus the term "any molasses" in Rule 24 inust necessarily mean 
any molasses and not just molasses manufactured by the process of 
D vacuum panning. Even presuming that the rule making power did not 
enable the Government to make such a rule, such a restriction could 
always be imposed by virtue of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. 
[417-D-EJ 
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of UP., (1982] I SCC 39, 
E relied on. 
CtVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4796 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.98 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 43744 of 1997. 
F 
Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the Appellant. 
G 
H 
Dinesh Dwivedi, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Rajnish Prasad, K.C. Dua, Ashok 
K. Srivastava and P.K. Chakravarty for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.N. V ARIA VA, J. This Appeal is against the ·Judgment of the 
Allahabad High Court dated 18th February, 1998; The Appellants' Writ 
Petition challenging Orders dated 10th December, 1997, l lth December, 
1997 and 19th December, 1997 has been dismissed. 
These Orders have been issued tinder the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran 
I c 
KURALI KHANDSARI UDYOG '" EXCISE COMMR. AND CONT. OF MOLASSES [VARIA VA, J.) 415 
Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed A 
thereunder. Section 2(a) of the Act defines "Controller" as the Controller of 
Molasses. Section 2(d) defines "Molasses" as the heavy, dark coloured viscous 
liquid produced in the final stage of manufacture of sugar by vacuum pan, 
from sugarcane or gur, when the liquid as such or in any form or admixture 
contains s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.