JANKI SUGAR MILLS CO LTD Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 15-1-1973, the Government of India published a notified order, in exercise of the powers by Section 18-AA of Industries (Development and, Regulation) Act 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, authorising the Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited, to take over the management of the Shree Sugar Mills and Company, Doiwala district Dehradun (U. P.) (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner firm) for a period, of one year from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. Before this period of one year could expire on 27-12-1973 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 18-AA read with sub-section (2) of Section 18-A of the Act, the Central Government made an amendment in the aforesaid notified order dated 15-1-1973 directing that for the words "one year" the words "five years" would be substituted. As a result of this amendment the order of appointment of the auhorised controller became five years in place of one year. The petitioner firm, therefore, filed the present writ petition on 12-2-1974 challenging the aforesaid notified orders dated 15-1-1973 and 27-12- 1973 appointing the authorised controller over its factory.

(2.) THE petitioner firm alleged that a partnership concern consisting of nine partners. For the purpose of manufacture of sugar the petitioner firm started a vacuum pan sugar factory at Doiwala several years back. In the year 1970 the factory started crushing sugarcane with effect from 16-12-70. Between 16-12- 1970 and 14-3-1971 huge quantity of sugarcane as crushed by it, but as it could not pay its price, the Cane Commissioner, U. P. issued two recovery certificates on 25-2-1971. As the amount was not paid by the petitioner firm, the Collector, Dehradun on 15-3-1971 in exercise of the powers under Section 279 (1) (g)/286-A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, attached the property of the petitioner firm and appointed one Sri O.P. Saxena, Additional District Magistrate as Receiver for the realisation of the dues for a period till further orders. The order of appointment of the Receiver was challenged by means of another writ petition No. 1983 of 1971 in this court. The petitioner claimed that although the Receiver had been appointed by the Collector for the realisation of Rs. 19,60,762.16 paisa but despite the fact that he paid a sum of Rs. 27,82,000 within six weeks of his appointment, his appointment was cancelled. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition challenging the appointment of the Receiver, the Government of India took over the management of the petitioner concern under S.18-AA of the Act and appointed the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Corporation, Lucknow as its authorised controller. The petitioner firm has asserted that this appointment is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore, the initial appointment order dated 15-1-1973 and thereafter its extension dated 27-12-1973 are liable to be quashed.

(3.) IN the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner firm has refuted the allegations made in the counter-affidavit and reiterated those which were made in the initial affidavit.