SUSHANT ELHENCE Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 10-12-1997 (Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit), order dated 11-12-1997 (Annexure-5) and the order dated 19-12-1997 (Annexure-8) issued by the State Government and the Excise Commissioner and Controller of Molasses, as the case may be, have been impugned in the present writ petition. The said orders have been challenged on the ground that the same imposes unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' right to carry on trade guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, prohibiting transport of khandsari Molasses outside the State of Uttar Pradesh without permission of the controller.

(2.) By the aforesaid order it has been proved that in case Khandsari molasses is sought to be transported outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, permission of the Controller would be necessary. This has been challenged by Sri. V. B. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on various grounds, which will be referring to at appropriate stages. He was opposed by Sri Yatindra Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, U. P., Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Arun Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of added parties, representing the Distilleries and Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the added respondents (representing Chemical Industries) supporting the said clause. We shall refer to the respective contention as are necessary at appropriate stages.

(3.) We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length. The arguments advanced are nonetheless erudite. The more erudite is the argument of the counsel, the more is the confusion. Therefore, we propose to attend only to those points which are necessary for deciding the present case.