A.V.VARADARAJAN, M.P.THAKKAR, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Rathi Khandsari Udyog – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
Judgment
VARADARAJAN, J. (Minority view):- Writ Petitions 1347 to 1360 of 1981 and Writ Petition 174 of 1982 are by manufacturers of Khandsari sugar in the open pan process and sellers thereof in Uttar Pradesh. Writ Petitions 21 to 23 of 1982, Writ Petitions 3178 to 3195 of 1982, Writ Petitions 4527 to 4532 of 1982 and Writ. Petition 3890 of 1983 are by traders in that product in U. P. The pleadings in W. Ps. 1347 to 1360 of 1981 were referred to by the learned counsel for the parties when common arguments were advanced in all the writ petitions. Therefore, the pleadings in those writ petitions alone are referred to in this judgment.
2. These W. Ps. 1347 to 1360 of 1981 under Article 32 of the Constitution are for declaring the provisions of U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 as ultra vires the Constitution and for restraining the respondents from realising market fee and licence fee from the petitioners under the provisions of that Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam).
3. The case of the petitioners/firms which manufacture khandsari sugar by the open pan process in the State of Uttar Pradesh and sell the same in that State is this :
In the process of manufactur
relied on : Commissioner of Income Tax v. Taj Mahal Hotel
Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar and Co. v. State of U.P.
Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal v. State of Maharashtra
referred to : Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U.P.
relied on : East India Tobacco Co.v. State of A.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.