Allowed

Asmita Infra Developers v. the Sugar Commissioner, Maharashtra State , Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Sept 2014WP/6336/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought issuance of an aerial distance certificate for a new sugar factory. The High Court quashed an order rejecting the application and directed the Superintending Surveyor to consider a fresh application within six weeks and issue the certificate within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

quashing of order dated 14.11.2011; direction to Superintending Surveyor to consider fresh application within six weeks and issue certificate within eight weeks.

Asmita Infra Developers Vs the Sugar Commissioner… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp6336.11

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6336 OF 2011

¶5

Asmita Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Gadhewadi Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur Through its Chairman Shri Vikrant s/o Vikram Gojamgunde Age 27 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur ...Petitioner

¶6

versus 1. The Sugar Commissioner Maharashtra State, Pune 2. The Union of India Through the Secretary In the department of Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi 3. The Superintending Surveyor M & G, GDC, Survey of India Phule Nagar, Yerwada Pune 411 006 4. Sidhi Sugar and Allied Industrial Limited, Ujana Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur Through its General manager 5. Jai Shri Rokdaba Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited Gut No. 48, Dhanora, Tq. Ahmedpur District Latur Through its Managing Director ...Respondents ….. Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. S.B. Deshpande, ASG for respondent No.2

¶7

wp6336.11 -2-

¶8

Mr. Alok Sharma, advocate for respondent No.3

¶9

CORAM : R. M. BORDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 29^th SEPTEMBER, 2014

¶11

JUDGMENT (PER R. M. BORDE, J.) :-

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of counsel for respective parties, matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶14

The petitioner is praying for directions to respondent No.3 to issue aerial distance certificate in pursuance to the application tendered by petitioner on 9.8.2011 within specified period. The petitioner is also praying for quashment of order dated 14.11.2011 rejecting the application tendered by the petitioner for issuance of aerial distance certificate. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner has tendered an application for issuance of industrial licence and his name is enlisted at Sr. No. 139 in the list of applicants. Whereas one Jai Shri Rokdoba sugar factory has also tendered an application for issuance of industrial licence and the said applicant has been placed at Sr. No.135 in the list. The petitioner

¶15

wp6336.11

¶16

-3-

¶17

had earlier secured aerial distance certificate from respondent No.3 certifying that the aerial distance between the proposed sugar factory of the petitioner and the existing sugar factory i.e. Priyadarshani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana is 18.2 kilometers. Before the application tendered by the petitioner could be considered, the application of Jai Shri Rokdoba was taken into consideration and aerial distance certificate has been issued in favour of said Karkhana.

¶18

In Regulation 6A framed under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966, it has been categorically provided that notwithstanding anything contained in clause 6, no new sugar factory shall be set up within the radius of 15 kilometers of any existing sugar factory or another new sugar factory in a State or two or more States;

¶19

Explanation 1 defines the existing sugar factory, shall mean a sugar factory in operation and shall also include a sugar factory that has taken all effective steps as specified in Explanation 4 to set up a sugar factory but excludes a sugar factory that has not carried out its crushing operations for last five sugar seasons.

¶20

Explanation 2 to Rule 6A provides that new sugar factory shall mean a sugar factory, which is not an existing sugar factory, but has filed the industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum as prescribed by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry in the Central Government and has

¶21

wp6336.11

¶22

-4-

¶23

submitted a performance guarantee of rupees one Crore to the Chief Director (Sugar), Department of Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution for implementation of the Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum within the stipulated time or extended time as specified in clause 6C.

¶24

In the event, if Jai Shri Rokdoba sugar factory answers the conditions laid down under explanation 2 of Regulation 6A for setting up new sugar factory the petitioner shall be required to secure aerial distance certificate between Jai Shri Rokdoba sugar factory and unit proposed by the petitioner.

¶25

The petitioner has already tendered an application to respondent No.3/Superintending Surveyor for issuance of aerial distance certificate for setting up new sugar factory i.e. Jai Shri Rokdoba and a Unit proposed by the petitioner. However, the application has not been considered by respondent No.3 on the ground that on earlier occasion at the request of the petitioner aerial distance certificate has already been issued.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances of the case, earlier order issued by respondent No.1 on 14.11.2011 stands quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to tender fresh application to respondent No.3 and said respondent is directed to consider the application

¶27

wp6336.11

¶28

-5-

¶29

which would be presented by petitioner in accordance with law. If the petitioner tenders fresh application giving all necessary details to respondent No.3, within a period of six weeks from today, respondent No.3 shall consider said application and issue aerial distance certificate by observing the procedure prescribed in that behalf, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of application. In the event of issuance of certificate by respondent No.3, it would be incumbent upon respondent No.1 to take further steps in accordance with regulations and policy prescribed in that behalf.

¶30

8. With directions as above, writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no

¶32

order as to costs.

¶33

( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶34

rlj/

Asmita Infra Developers v. the Sugar Commissioner, Maharashtra State , Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asmita Infra Developers v. the Sugar Commissioner, Maharashtra State , Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asma Parveen Sk.Iqbal Vs Shaikh Iqbal Shaikh Ismail Parkar

The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs Satish Dhondiba @ Dhondiram Malshette and Others

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation Latur Vs Harishchandra Vaijanath Chatekar and Others

Bharat Prabhakar Sabde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suman Dattu Bhange and Othres Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrikant Prakashrao Mungal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others