MIRACLE SUGAR FACTORY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had moved a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 36657 of 1994 against an inaction in respect of grant of licence for the year 1993-94 under the U. P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturers Licensing Order, 1967 which was disposed of on 11th January, 1995 and in connection whereof the petitioner had made the present application No. 429/74/95. Mr. V. K. Birla appearing for the Bareilly Sugar Mills who has been permitted to intervene at a subsequent stage submits that the said application has become infructuous. Mr. S. U. Khan counsel for the petitioner admits the position. Therefore, the said application is dismissed as infructuous assigned area adequate supplies of

(2.) MR. S. U. Khan, counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner had applied for licence for the year 1994-95 but the same was directed to be considered by the said judgment dated 11th January, 1995 by the appellate authority in the light of the observation made therein. Now the authority having rejected the prayer for grant of licence by an order dated 8th March, 1995, the petitioner has come up by means of this writ petition assailing the said order.

(3.) DRAWING my attention to the observations made in the said order dated 11th January, 1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 36657 of 1994 which is Annexure 10 to the writ petition. Mr. Khan submits that the said policy has been interpreted in the said judgment to he extent that the literal meaning of the policy is not to be accepted. It has looked behind the object of the formation of the policy which was recorded in the said judg ment. That the prime consideration would be to see whether the supply of sugarcane to the existing factory or sugar mill has not adversely effected by the grant of licence under the said Licensing Order. Therefore, the respondents, while considering the claim of the petitioner, were to reconsider in the light of the observation made therein.