Petitioner challenged a crushing licence granted to a rival factory, arguing an IEM amendment in their favor was valid. The High Court held the licence was legal as the Commissioner followed procedure and the IEM dispute was pending in a separate petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
910.WPST-29456-19 & Ors..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.29456 OF 2019
Sarvodaya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. … Petitioner versus The Commissioner of Sugar and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.28791 OF 2019 WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.01 OF 2019
Sarvodaya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. … Petitioner versus The Commissioner of Sugar and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9418 OF 2019 WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2019
Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited … Petitioner versus Government of India and Ors. … Respondents
Mr.Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate i/b Vijay Killedar for the Petitioner in WPST/ 28791/19 and WPST/29456/19 and for Respondent No.6 in WP/9418/19.
Mr.Vijaysinh Thorat, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.A.M.Kulkarni a/w Mr.Sarthak Diwan and Ms.Akansha Helaskar for Respondent No.3 in WPST/28791/19 and WPST/29456/19 and for the Petitioner in WP/9418/19.
Mr.Ram Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Parag Vyas for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the Interim Application No.2 of 2019 in WP/9418/19.
Page 1 of 10
M.M.Salgaonkar
910.WPST-29456-19 & Ors..doc
Mr.A.I.Patel, Additional Government Pleader a/w Mr.B.V.Samant-AGP for State in all Petitions.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I.CHAGLA, JJ. DATE :- NOVEMBER 21, 2019
P.C. :-
Page 2 of 10
M.M.Salgaonkar
910.WPST-29456-19 & Ors..doc
from 14th November, 2019, the third respondent can crush the sugarcane, which has been harvested and brought at the gate of the factory.
Page 3 of 10
M.M.Salgaonkar
910.WPST-29456-19 & Ors..doc
mean that there is a valid and subsisting IEM in favour of the third respondent-Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. If there is no such valid IEM in its favour and particularly, after the substitution, then, the Crushing Licence could not have been granted. That licence cannot be granted because there are valid reasons for substitution or change in the IEM. The Central Government has filed an affidavit-in-reply in Writ Petition No.9418 of 2019 and particularly, justifying the amendment. Paragraph 14 of that affidavit-in-reply is relied upon by Mr.Dhond.
Page 4 of 10
M.M.Salgaonkar
910.WPST-29456-19 & Ors..doc
bags or stock. The Government is expected to built a buffer stock of sugar and maintained for all seasons and to meet the consumers’ demand. The petitioner is not such existing sugar factory. In fact, the IEM in favour of the third respondent was issued on the basis that it has taken over the entire factory, including equipments and machines of the petitioner. The petitioner is not concerned with the sugar stock and would like this Court to take a note of pending litigation, which litigation was foisted upon the third respondent by undue and uncalled for intervention of the Central Government. For all these reasons, he would submit that the writ petition be dismissed.
Page 5 of 10
M.M.Salgaonkar
910.WPST-29456-19 & Ors..doc
(Reservation of Areas and Regulation of Crushing and Sugarcane Supply) Order 1984. The Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State having been empowered by this Order, which is traceable to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to our mind, was possessed of the necessary authority and jurisdiction to consider the application made by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 made that application for it was holding an industrial licence dated 29th January, 2018.
Page 6 of 10
M.M.Salgaonkar
910.WPST-29456-19 & Ors..doc
that this IEM continues to be valid, subsisting and binding on the petitioner before us. That is because though there was an agreement between both sugar factories and that agreement postulates taking over of the property of the petitioner’s factory. That was indeed taken over. The sugar factory was taken over with all its equipments and was being operated by respondent No.3 before us. Therefore, when that agreement between both sides resulted in some disputes, which were then taken to arbitration and eventually to a Court, on account of the pendency of that proceedings, the petitioner herein prevailed upon the Central Government acting through its Ministry of Commerce and Industry to effect an amendment to the IEM. By the amendment, the name of Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. was substituted with the name of Sarvodaya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. This was done behind the back and without any notice to Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. It was, therefore, constrained to move the writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.9418 of 2019 before this Court. This Court, not only entertained the petition, but has passed a detailed order also. That detailed order grants a stay to the amendment or the insertion, which is nothing but a deletion of the name of the Rajarambapu Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. That order having been stayed or its implementation and enforcement kept in
Page 7 of 10
M.M.Salgaonkar
910.WPST-29456-19 & Ors..doc
abeyance, therefore, enables the Rajarambapu Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. to urge that the Crushing Licence can be issued in its favour. The amendment could not be carried to its logical end and the IEM continues in favour of respondent No.3 on the basis of the orders passed by this Court. The Central Government’s order and directions are, therefore, not given effect to.
Page 8 of 10
M.M.Salgaonkar
910.WPST-29456-19 & Ors..doc
factory. There is other requirement, namely, the certificate of the Pollution Control Board. Thus, the requisite consent of the Pollution Control Board and other documents, which are mandated by this Circular, have to be, therefore, placed on record together with the application. If there was a valid application in terms of this Circular made to the competent authority, then, he committed no error in law, much less any perversity in entertaining that application and granting the Crushing Licence. He has granted it in accordance with the Circular and has further imposed conditions on the third respondent. In accordance with these terms and conditions, the crushing has to be carried out.
Page 9 of 10
M.M.Salgaonkar
910.WPST-29456-19 & Ors..doc
(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 10 of 10
M.M.Salgaonkar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Crushing Licence granted to a third respondent when an Industrial Entrepreneurs Memorandum (IEM) amendment was pending in another writ petition.
Whether the Commissioner of Sugar acted legally or arbitrarily in granting a crushing licence to a factory whose IEM amendment was under judicial stay.
What remedy the displaced petitioner has with respect to their claim while a related challenge to the IEM amendment is pending.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sarvodaya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
The Commissioner of Sugar
The State of Maharashtra
Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI
R.I.CHAGLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
