SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNEMENT Vs. VIDYAVATHI M. KOTTURSHETTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These intra court appeals arise out of orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 102172/2022, 102314/2022, 102613/2022, 102624/2022 and 102966/2022 and two other writ petitions, namely, WP No. 102585/2022 and WP no. 102119/2022, all dtd. 16/12/2022. The grievance of the parties are all directed and arise out of claim for Industrial Entrepreneurship Memorandum (IEM) for establishment of new sugar unit at Hirekoppa village of Saundatti Taluk, Belagavi District.

(2.) A narration of brief facts would be necessary to understand the background of the case. The Government of Karnataka had issued a notification on 11/9/2007 setting out the procedure for establishment of new sugar factories in the State of Karnataka. Applications were required to be submitted for grant of IEM, for establishment of new sugar factory in the specified area or village in terms of clause 2(7) of the said notification. However, in terms of clause 2(8), if more than one application is received, the specified authority for recommending for grant of IEM to the Central Government was the Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, who was to take necessary approval from the concerned Minister. It is not disputed that in respect of Hirekoppa village, Saundatti Taluk, IEM was issued in favour of M/s Inamdar Sugars Ltd. and performance bank guarantee was furnished by Inamdar Sugars on 1/11/2010. However, for various reasons, Inamdar Sugars was not able to comply with the requirements fully within the stipulated time, as was required under the notification. On 11/1/2019 the Chief Director (Sugars), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi, passed an order de- recognizing the IEM of Inamdar Sugars and further passed orders confiscating the bank guarantee dtd. 25/11/2010 in a sum of Rs.1.00crore which was furnished by Inamdar Sugars. M/s Inamdar Sugars filed W.P. No. 104180/2019, 104575-576/2019 challenging the order of de-recognition dtd. 11/1/2019 and sought for repayment of the bank guarantee. The learned Single Judge, while noticing the amendment dtd. 24/8/2016 brought to the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, held that the competent authority has not taken into consideration the amended provisions before de-recognizing the IEM and consequently quashed the order dtd. 11/1/2019 and directed the concerned authority to reconsider the representation dtd. 27/10/2017 in the light of the amendment dtd. 24/8/2016 to the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and directed the concerned authority to pass orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(3.) Although the said writ petitions in 104180/2019 and connected matters were disposed of on 10/2/2020, and no orders were passed by the competent authority, Inamdar Sugars gave three representations on 28/2/2022, 15/3/2022 and 23/3/2022 seeking extension of the IEM in terms of the amended provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order. When there was no positive reaction from the competent authority, Inamdar Sugars filed W.P. No. 101700/2022 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authorities to consider the request made for extension of IEM and to pass necessary orders. The learned Single Judge passed an order dtd. 22/4/2022 directing the authorities to consider the representations given by Inamdar Sugars and to pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was also directed that the consideration of the representations shall be strictly in accordance with law and any orders passed by this Court on earlier occasions.