Back
High Court Of Delhi
SIMBHAOLI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 3105 of 1990
Decided On : 03/31/1992
Held:
The present case is covered on all fours by the ratio of a Supreme Court decision in The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros., AIR 1971 SC 246 wherein it was held that rice mill owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the setting up of a new rice mill by another - even if such setting up be in contravention of Section 8 (iii) (c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 - because no right vested in such an applicant is infringed. It may be pointed out here that the aforesaid decision has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in Mithlesh Garg v. Union of India
For the aforesaid reasons it was held that the petitioner has no locus standi to invoke the special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
(ii) THE INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) ACT, 1951 - No opportunity of being heard to be granted to a person — who is not an applicant before granting permission to other for establishing Sugar Factory.
In terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under, no opportunity is required to be afforded to those who are not applicants. Since the petitioner was not one of the applicants in establishing a sugar factory in the area in question, it was not entitled to any hearing.
(iii) THE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING RULES, 1952 - Rule 13 and 15 — Licensing Committee competent to take a decision whether public enquiry necessary in respect of an applicant.
It may be pointed out here that in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, it is for the licencing committee to take a decision as to whether a public enquiry is necessary in respect of any application. Since in the present case the licensing committee did not think it necessary to hold a public enquiry, there is no violation of Rule 13 in the present case. Further there is no violation of Rule 15 of the Rules also inasmuch as it was on the basis of the report of the licencing committee that the letter of intent was issued in fvour of respondent No.5.
(iv) THE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING RULES, 1952 - Rule 15 — Right of hearing to be afforded to a person if some one else claims a right to purchase Sugar cane from a purchasing centre belonging to reserved area.
The petitioner will however be entitled to hearing before the Cane Commissioner under Section 15 of the UP Act of 1953 as and when respondent No.5 claims any right to purchase sugarcane from any purchasing centres belonging to the reserved area of the petitioner.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the letter of intent granted by the Government of India to one Mr. K. K. Bajoria (respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) on 7th August, 1990 for the purposes of establishing a new sugar factory at a place called Agauta, District Bulandshahr, U. P. with crushing capacity of 250 Tonnes Cane Crushing Per Day (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "i cd ).
( 2 ) THE tacts of the case as briefly stated are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is having a sugar factory at Simbhaoli, District Ghaziabad, U. P. Prior to 1982 the licensed crushing capacity of the petitioner s factory was 2000 TCD. In the year 1982 this crushing capacity was raised to 2750 TCD. On 29th December, 1989 Government of India granted licence to the petitioner for expansion of its crushing capacity from 2750 TCD to 5000 TCD. It may be pointed out here that in June 1990 the petitioner had filed an application for further expansion of its crushing capacity from 5000 TCD to 10000 TCD and this application is pending for consideration with the Government of India.
( 3 ) ON 5th April, 1990, respondent No. 5 applied under section II of the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ) for grant of a licence for installing a sugar factory with a crushing capacity of 4500 TCD at a place called Agauta, district Bullandshar. The aforesaid application was received by the Directorate of Sugar on 10th April, 1990.
( 4 ) THE Government of India, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies vide its letter dated 25th April, 1990, addressed to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, sought its views and comments on the application of respondent No. 5 and asked Government of Uttar Pradesh to provide the information in the prescribbed proformas. A copy of this letter was also endorsed to respondent No. 5.
( 5 ) THE Office of the Cane Commissioner Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, on 14th May, 1990, on receipt of prescribed forms from respondent No. 5, authenticated the statement of facts contained in the forms and forwarded the same to the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
( 6 ) ON the basis of the information received from the Cane Commissioner Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, vide letter daied 31st May, 1990 forwarded the additional information containing cane availability data or potential for development of cane and other requisite informations together with the recommendations of the State Government to the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, New Delhi.
( 7 ) ON 23rd July, 1990 the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrtial Development issued a press note containing fresh guidelines for licensing of new and expansion of existing sugar factories and these guidelines were in supersession of earlier guidelines. The guideline s contained in the aforesaid press note are as under:-
I) New sugar factories will continue to be licensed for a minimum economic capacity of 2500 Tonnes Cane Crush per day (TCD ). There would not be any maximum limit on such capacity. No relaxation of minimum economic capacity for backward-areas or in the areas under-developed from the point of view of sugarcane availability will be permitted.
II) Licences for new sugar factories will be issued subject to the condition that there is no sugar mill within a radial distance of 15 kilometers. The applicant does not have to produce any certificate/clearance regarding cane availability or potential for development of cane.
III) All new licences will be issued with the stipulation that cane price will be payable on the basis of scrose content of the sugarcane.
IV) Other things being equal, preference in licensing will be given to proposals from the co-operative sctor and the public sector, in that order, as compared to the private sector.
V) While granting licences for new sugar factories, industrial licences in respe
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
