The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for molasses under Section 7A of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, must come within the four corners of the section, and the interpretation of the section rules out the application by a dealer.

Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard Sri Arun Tandon counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh learned standing counsel appearing for the State Respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 27th May, 2002 passed by the Controller of Molasses/Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad. A further prayer has been made commanding the Respondents to reconsider the application of the Petitioner afresh for grant of permission u/s 7A of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows:

Petitioner is a firm registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Petitioner claimed to be dealer/ handling agent of molasses. Petitioner claims that earlier by the order of Controller molasses, he was allotted different quantity of molasses. Petitioner further claims that he has also been granted. "No objection" certificate for export of molasses out of the State. Petitioner filed an application u/s 7A of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, praying that he be granted permission for 1,00,000 quintals of molasses. He has stated in his application that the said molasses will be sold to the distilleries and the industrial establishments of the State of Uttar Pradesh and outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioner had also filed a Writ Petition No. 1751 of 2002 after filing the aforesaid application. When the writ petition came for hearing on 15.5.2002 learned standing counsel made statement that the order has already been passed on the application of the Petitioner which shall be communicated. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the said order in appropriate proceedings. After the aforesaid order Petitioner was issued letter dated 27.5.2002 intimating that his application u/s 7A has been rejected. In the order dated 27.5.2002, it has been stated that u/s 7A of the Act, only such person can give an application who required molasses for its distilleries or for industrial development. Order further states that the application given by the Petitioner does not come u/s 7A since the Petitioner has not claimed that he required for his own distillery or for industrial development. The said order dated 27.5.2002 has been challenged in this writ petition.

4. Sri Arun Tandon counsel for the Petitioner challenging the aforesaid order dated 27.5.2002 made following submissions:

(1) u/s 7A there is no prohibition in granting an application of a person who is a dealer and requires the molasses for it being sold for purposes of industrial development. The Respondents have misinterpreted Section 7A and have illegally rejected the application.

(2) The Petitioner and other similarly situated dealers in earlier years were granted permission, reference has been made to the orders of the Controller dated 11.4.1989, 20.6.1989, Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition.

(3) State of Uttar Pradesh by Government order has lifted control on price and distribution of molasses hence no restriction can be imposed in free sale of molasses.

5. Learned standing counsel refuting the submissions of the counsel for the Petitioner supported the order dated 27.5.2002 and contended that u/s 7A the Petitioner is not eligible for grant of any permission for molasses. It was contended that u/s 7A no dealer or handling agent can be granted permission to lift the molasses. The standing counsel contended that only that person can apply who requires molasses for his distillery or for any purpose of industrial development. It was contended that since the Petitioner does not require the molasses for his distillery or for any purpose of industrial development by himself, he cannot make an application.

6. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The main issue which has arisen in this writ petition is regarding true scope and meaning of Section 7A of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964. For consider