PURTABPORE CO. LTD. versus CANE COMMISSIONER OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 21-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.0 
E 
F 
G 
, 
.. ,) 
H 
PURTABPORE CO. LTD • 
v. 
CANE COMMISSIONER OF BIBAR & ORS. 
November 21, 1968 
[S. M. S!KRI AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1955-Central 
Government's 
power 
under cl. 6 of Order 10 regulate supply of sugarcane to factories-Power 
under cl. 6 delegated under cl. 11 to State Governments and Cane Com-
missioners-Cane Commissioner passing Order under cl. 6( 1) on direc .. 
tion given by Chief Minister such order is invalid-An order under s. 6(1) 
nwdifying a reservation in favour of a factory is quasi judicial-Require-
ment of natural justice must be satisfied. 
The Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1955 was promulgated by the Cen-
tral Government in the exercise of its powers under the Essential Supplies 
Act. 
Under cl. 6 of the Order the Central Government could 
reserve 
any area where sugarcane was grown for a 
factory taking into 
account 
various relevant !factors. Clause 11 allowed the Central Government to dele-
gate its power under cl. 6, and the Central Government by a notification dat-
ed July 16, 1966 delegated the said power to the several State Governments 
and the Cane Commissioners of those States. The appeIIant was a sugar 
mill situated in U.P. near the border of Bihar State. For a long time its 
source of supply of sugarcane had been the neighbour:ng area of Bihar 
State consisting of 208 villages. 
For the seasons 1966-67 and 1967-68 
the 5th respondent-a sugar mill situate on the Bihar side of the border-
sought to have the area reserved for itself but by order dated November 
30, 1966 the request was rejected by the State Government. In December 
1966 the Cane Commissioner, Bihar passed an order under cl. 6(1) df 
the Sugar Cane (Control) Order reserving the said area of 208 villages 
for the appellant for the seasons 1966-67 and 1967-68. 
The 5th respon-
dent made representations to the Chief Minister. 
Acting on 
direc1ions 
given by the Chief Minister the Cane Commissioner, B:har passed orders 
on November 14, 1967, whereby by a notification in the Bihar Govern-
ment Gazette 121 of·the aforesaid villages were reserved for 1he appellant 
and 99 villages for the 5th respondent. The appellant filed a writ petition 
in the High Court challenging this order df the Cane Comm;ssioner but 
the petition was rejected. 
With certificate appeal was filed in this Court. 
The contentions urged on behalf of the appellant were : (i) The orders in 
question though purported to have been made by the Cane Commissioner 
were in fact not so, and were therefore invalid; (ii) Every proceeding to 
modify any reservation under c1. 6 is a quasi-judicial proceeding. 
As the 
impugned notifications were made without affording the appellant reason-
able opportunity for representing its case they were bad in Jaw; (iii) Even 
~f the said proceeding was considered an administrative proceeding 
the 
impugned orders were liable to be set aside on the basis of the rule laid 
down by this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, [1961] 
2 S.C.R. 625. 
HELD: (i) From the material on nx:ord the only conclusion possible 
was that the Chief Minister imposed his opinion on the Cane 
Commis-
sioner. 
The power exercisable by the Cane Commissioner under cl. 6(1) 
is a ~t~tutory power. He alone could have exercised that power. 
While 
exercismg that power he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of 
anyone-not even in favour of the State Government or the Chief Minis-
ter. It was not proper for the Chief Minister to have interfered with the 
808 . 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
functions df the Cane Commissioner. In this case what had happened 
A 
was that the power of the Cane Commissioner had been exercised by the 
Chief Minister, an authority not recognised by cl. (6) read with cl. (11) 
but the responsibility for making those orders was asked to be taken by 
the Cane Commissioner. 
The executive officers entrusted with statutory discretions n1ay in some 
cases be obliged to take into account considerations of public policy and 
to some context the policy of a Minister or the Government as a whole 
when it is a relevant factor in weighing the policy 'but this will not absolve 
them from their duty to exercise their personal 
judgment in individual 
cases unless explicit statutory provision has been 
made for them to be 
Riven binding instructions by a superior. [816 D-H] 
Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, [1952] S.C.R. 
135 and State of Punjab 

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