VIJAI SUGAR INDUSTRIES Vs. SPECIAL SECRETARY APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 7.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.9.1999 (signed on 9.9.1999) passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 13.1.1999 passed by the licensing authority under the U. P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturers' Licensing Order, 1967 (for short 'the Order') and to treat the petitioners to be the licence holders for the years 1997 to 1999. Prayer for quashing the order dated 3.12.1998 passed by the licensing authority has also been made. Besides the general prayer, prayer to pass any other order or orders as this Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case and the submissions made before it, has also been made.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioners used to carry on Khandsari manufacturing business in the name and style of M/s. Vijai Sugar Industries in their unit situated in plot No. 76, village Akbarpur Seemli, district Bijnor on the strength of a licence granted in their favour by the licensing authority under the aforesaid Order. The licence granted in favour of the petitioners was valid upto 30.9.1996. It was on 18.12.1996 that the petitioners have sold the scrap/junk of the machinery, dilapidated building and plot No. 76 in favour of respondent No. 5 through respondent Nos. 6 and 7 ; but not the crusher. In the year 1996-97, the petitioners did not run the unit nor applied for renewal of their licence. In 1997-98, the petitioners decided to restart the aforesaid business, they, therefore, after completing the formalities for the same, applied for renewal of their licence to establish the unit in plot No. 33 situated in the same village comparatively far away from the reserved area of the Mill as compared to plot No. 76. The licensing authority without applying its mind to the licensing policy for the year 1997-98 and the provisions of the Order, dismissed the application of the petitioners for renewal of their licence merely on the ground that on the spot, the crusher/unit was not installed and that the unit was sold in favour of contesting respondents, by his order dated 10/9.9.1997. In the licensing policy for the year 1997-98, there was no restriction either on the sale of the unit or shifting of the same to the other place within the same reserved area and the licence of the petitioners could be renewed. In the meanwhile, contesting respondents also applied for grant of a new licence at plot No. 76 in place of the petitioners. According to them the order passed by the licensing authority was illegal and the same was contrary to the provisions of the licensing policy and the Order, therefore, the petitioners filed an appeal before the appellate authority, the State Government, challenging the validity of the order of licensing authority. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 14.1.1998. It would not be out of place to state that before appellate authority, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 applied for their impleadment as parties in the appeal which was objected to by the petitioners but the same was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioners challenged the validity of the orders passed by the licensing authority and the Appellate Authority before the High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition No. 212 (MS) of 1998. The High Court was pleased to admit the writ petition and grant interim stay order whereby the operation of the orders passed by the authorities below was stayed on 20.1.1998. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavits were filed in reply of which the petitioners also filed rejoinder-affidavits. High Court also dismissed the aforesaid writ petition by its judgment and order dated 8.10.1998. Consequently, the interim order granted by the High Court stood vacated. The petitioners immediately thereafter filed a leave petition, on which leave was granted and it was registered as Special Appeal (Civil) No. 17302 of 1998. Hon'ble Supreme Court on the application for interim relief passed the following order on 17.11.1998 : "Exemption allowed. I.A. No. 2 is allowed. Issue notice returnable within three weeks indicating that the matter would be finally disposed of at the notice stage Itself. Dasti service in addition is permitted."