KURALI KHANDSARI UDYOG KURALI DIST MEERUT Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLER OF MOLASSES STATE OF U P ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 11-12-1997 (Annexure-1) passed by the Ex cise Commissioner and Controller of Molasses, is under challenge in the present writ petition. THE said order was also under challenge in Writ Petition No. 1989 (24) of 1998, Sushant Elhence v. THE State of U. P. and others, a more comprehensive writ petition involving the same subject. This writ petition is decided alongwith the said Writ Petition No. 1989 (24) of 1998, the decision whereof shall govern this writ petition. In the light of the decision in Writ Petition No. 1989 (24) of 1998, this writ petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed. O. K. Seth, J.- THE order dated 10-12-1997 (Annexure-1 to the Supplemen tary 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 Commis sioner 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 petitioner's right to carry on trade guaranteed under Article 19 (l) (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 provided that in case Khandsari Molasses is sought to the transported outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, permission of the Controller would be necessary. This has been challenged by Sri VB. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on be half 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, UP. , Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Arun Tan-don, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of added parties, representing the Distill eries and Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the added respondents (representing Chemical In dustries) supporting the said clause. We shall refer to the respective contention as are necessary at appropriate stages.

(3.) THE first question combines several other points, which includes the question as to whether it is competent for the executive to legislate which has been sought to be legislated through the im pugned clauses 7,8 and (6) of the respec tive orders in aid of Article 162 of the Constitution. This point we shall examine after examining the contention as to whether Khandsari molasses can be brought within the definition of molasses as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act.