“Para 8....Before this Court, it was stated on behalf of the contesting respondents in the counter affidavit that the Government of Uttar Pradesh held 50% shares in the mill which was not denied on behalf of the mill. Therefore, even if it is taken to be admitted due to non traverse, the share of the State Government would be only 50% and not entire. Thus, the first test laid down is not fulfilled by the mill. It has been stated on behalf of the contesting respondents that the mill used to receive some financial assistance from the Government. According to the mill, the Government had advanced some loans to the mill. It has no where been stated that the State used to meet any expenditure of the mill much less almost the entire one, but, as a matter of fact, it operates on the basis of self generated finances. There is nothing to show that the mill enjoys monopoly status in the matter of production of sugar. A perusal of bye-laws of the mill would show that its membership is open to cane growers other societies, gram sabha, State Government, etc., and under bye-law 52, committee of management consisting of 15 members is constituted out of whom, 6 members are required to be elected by the representatives of individual members, 3 out of co-operative society and other institutions and 2 representatives of financial institutions besides 5 members who are required to be nominated by the State Government which shall be
