| Headnote |
Administrative Law:Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966; Clauses 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11/Uttar 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 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 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 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 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 the decision taken by the authorities, which is final 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 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, 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. 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 of S.2(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.'Controlled industries' - Meaning of in the context of the 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, 1967.Appellant-Company is engaged in the manufacture, sale and supply of sugar. One M/s. Indian Glycols Limited-respondent no.4 submitted an application for grant of licence for Power Driven Crusher to start a new Unit for the manufacture of rah from sugarcane. The application was rejected by the authorities. The State Government vide its order dated November 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 cases. Respondent No.4 submitted a fresh application for grant of licence for rah manufacturing unit, which was allowed by the Licencing Authority observing that the new unit of respondent No.4 would not adversely affect adequate and sufficient supplies of sugarcane to the sugar mills of the appellant in the reserved area and hence, limitation in para(ka) could be relaxed to grant the Licence to respondent No.4. Appellant challenged the order of the Licencing authority by filing a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court inter alia holding that all the contentions raised by the appellant were ill-founded. Hence the ID present appeal. Appellant contended that the change in licencing policy effected by the Authorities was arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to law; that no licence could have been granted to respondent No.4 - and the said action of the authorities was ma la fide and had been taken by then in colourable exercise of power with a view to extend undeserving benefit to respondent No.4; that the High Court was wholly in error in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the entire sugarcane produced in the reserved area of sugar factory of the appellant was available and no prejudice would be caused to it; that moreover, under 1961 Act, the Authorities were obliged to consider as to whether relaxation of conditions were necessary and expedient in 'public interest'. Since, there is no such satisfaction which is reflected in the order, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the authorities and the order is liable to be quashed; and that the authorities considered availability of sugarcane in the 'whole State' as against availability of sugarcane in the 'reserved area'. What was relevant was not availability of sugarcane in the State, but availability in the reserved areas which was material. If the said fact is considered, it is clearly established that though the appellant was in need of much more quantity of sugarcane, it was not made available and the appellant had to close down certain units due to non-availability of sugarcane.Respondent-State submitted that in accordance with the changed policy of the State Government, respondent No.4 applied for licence, which was granted and there is no illegality therein; that all actions were taken by the Authorities after considering the relevant laws applicable to the case on hand and a decision was taken; that in the order issued in favour of respondent No.4, it was expressly stated that the unit of respondent No.4 will not purchase 'bonded cane'; that there would be no possibility of adverse effect of cane supply to the sugar mill of the appellant; that so far as availability of sugarcane to appellant-Company is concerned, it is ensured that there is no violation of any provision of law on the basis of which appellant can object grant of licence in its favour; that a condition has been imposed that respondent No.4 has to cater its need without disturbing and/or curtailing sugarcane supply to the appellant-Company. Precisely because of that condition, respondent No.4 was allowed to purchase sugarcane from other areas; that correct reading of relevant provisions of 1961 Act clearly indicate that normally licence should be granted unless a finding is recorded that it would not be in public interest to grant such licence. No such finding has been recorded and it could not be said that grant of licence to respondent No.4, had adversely affected public interest;ยท and that if by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances in their entirety, the relevant provisions of law and change of policy, a licence is granted by the authorities in favour of respondent No.4 without disturbing supply of sugarcane to the appellant, it cannot be said that the action taken by respondent-Authorities was illegal, unlawful or otherwise objectionable. |
