SWAMI SAMARTH SUGARS AND AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. versus LOKNETE MARUTRAO GHULE PATIL DNYANESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 54 · Decided: 13-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
   [2022] 17 S.C.R. 54
54
SWAMI SAMARTH SUGARS AND AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.
v.
LOKNETE MARUTRAO GHULE PATIL DNYANESHWAR
SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4021of 2022)
JULY 13, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Essential Commodities Act, 1955:s. 3 – Sugarcane(Control)
Order, 1966 – clause 6A, 6C & 6D –Restriction on setting two sugar
factories – Time limit for implementing Industrial Entrepreneur
Memorandum (IEM) – In 2010, the appellant applied for IEM which
was acknowledged by Govt. of India on the basis of a certificate
regarding aerial distance between the existing sugar factory
(Respondent no. 1) set up in 1974 and the nearby proposed sugar
factory –Writ petitions were filed challenging the grant of IEM to
the Appellant, one on the ground of aerial distance of proposed
sugar factory and existing factory was more than 15 kms and that
the proposed sugar factory falls within the radius of 500 meters
from the bank of river thereby falling under no development zone –
High Court held that the appellant is required to comply with all
laws including the anti-pollution, environmental protection and
ecology; and that the issue of aerial distance certificate cannot be
reopened again–Subsequently the State of Maharashtra directed
that in terms of proviso to Clause 6A of the Control Order, 1966 no
new sugar factory would be set up within the radius of 25 kms of
any existing sugar factory or any other new factory– Thereafter,
the time limit for implementing industrial entrepreneur memorandum
was amended – Appellant then sought NOC in view of the order of
the High Court which was not granted by State authorities –
Consequently, the appellant applied for extension of time and
change of location due to earlier location being no development
zone and was accepted – Writ petition by the existing sugar factory
challenging grant of extension and change of location– Government
allowed the extension a couple to times till 2020– Another writ
petition filed by the existing sugar factory challenging grant of
extension and change of location – High Court held that the
appellant had not taken any effective steps within the period of two
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
55
years from the date of the acknowledgement of EMI; that the IEM
stood de-recognized before the Sugar Control Order was amended
on 26.08.2016 which extended the period of implementation;that
extensions were granted in violation to the provisions of the Rules
and the Statute; and that as per the amendment, the new sugar
factory had to be at a distance of not less than 25 kms–Issue arose
as regards, whether in the absence of any interim order against the
appellant in the first round of litigation, the period during which
writ petitions were pending are liable to be excluded; whether the
State/ Central Government was justified in excluding such period
while granting extension of IEM; whether the lis initiated against
the appellant is a sufficient reason to exclude the period spent in
such litigation and was a reasonable ground for the State/Central
Government to extend IEM; whether the amended Control Order in
terms of proviso to Clause 6C as amended by the State of
Maharashtra on 03.12.2011 would be applicable when the High
Court in the earlier writ petition has held that the issue of Aerial
Distance Certificate cannot be reopened at the instance of the
appellant or any other party again, and whether the IEM stands
lapsed on the failure on the part of entrepreneur to set up the sugar
factory and start production within the time specified in Clause 6C
or such lapsing would be only after an order in terms of Clause 6D
of the Control Order is passed – Held: Latin maxim ‘Actus Curiae
Neminem Gravabit’, states that the act of the Court will not prejudice
anyone - During the whole litigation history, the appellant was at
the receiving end of the writ petitions, thus, the period spent in such
lis cannot be used against him - Though there was no interim order
passed in the writ petitions, such petitions created a cloud on the
right of the appellant to set up a sugar factory at the location
earmarked and to commence commercial production - Writ petitions
remained pending for a period of four years, the period spent in
defending such writ petitions was validly taken into consideration
by the State/Central Government to grant extension of time limit
fixed in the Control Order - Extensions were given when the second
r

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