HAILEYBURIA TEA ESATES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.C No.17661 of 2020 dated 23.9.2020, whereby Ext.P26 order passed by the Government of India, the appellate authority under the TEA (Marketing) Control Order, 2003 was affirmed and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Ext.P26 order is passed by the appellate authority confirming the findings, however, modifying the order passed by the TEA Board and reducing the suspension period to one month under the TEA (Marketing) Control Order, 2003 dated 1.7.2020, whereby it was found that the appellants indeed tried to circumvent the Pan India Auction Rules and indulged in unfair trade practice by resorting to buy its own tea in connivance with some registered buyers. It was further found that the whole episode exposes the unethical business practices followed by the appellants for its own narrow commercial deal at the cost of transparency and trust on the basis of which the whole edifice Tea auction system rests. Thereupon it was held that the Tea Board has every reason to believe that unfair trade practice was followed by the appellants which could not be brushed aside as it can affect the Tea Marketing system including public auction of tea and accordingly decided to suspend the factory registration (RC-27) of semnivalley tea estate factory owned by the appellants and the buyer registration certificate number KOL/B-7511 of the appellants for a period of three months w.e.f. 1st July, 2020.

(2.) The learned Single Judge after assimilating the factual and legal situation and the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of interference in writ jurisdiction in administrative matters has dismissed the writ petition ultimately holding as follows in paragraph 17:

(3.) It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge the appeal is preferred. The paramount contention advanced by the appellants in the appeal is that the learned Single Judge has not taken note of the fact that the order was passed by the appellate authority without dealing with any of the contentions raised by the petitioner and discloses a clear case of non application of mind since it is evident that the appellate authority has not quoted any rule or any provision that was violated warranting such penalty levied on the allegation that the appellants had bought back tea sold at auction and thereafter repacked and brought to sale again at auction after complying with all pre-sale requirements.