Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10610 OF 2017
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 3244 OF 2017)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
AMITAVA ROY,J.
Leave granted.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh along with its functionaries
of the Department of Excise are in appeal against the
judgment and order dated 07.10.2016 rendered by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, thereby in essence
directing the appellants to allow the respondent to retain 25%
of the balance stock of molasses, after utilization for its
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BALA PARVATHI
Date: 2017.08.19
14:16:52 IST
Reason:
captive consumption, for supply to the distilleries
2
manufacturing liquor for the Molasses Year 2015-16. The
respondent was also left at liberty to move the appropriate
authority in the event of its requirement for further quantity of
molasses for its captive consumption during the said Molasses
Year. The appellants repudiate this determination and the
above directions to be opposed to and militative of the policy
for the Molasses Year 2015-16.
3. We have heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior
counsel for the appellants and Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned
senior counsel for the respondent.
4. The pleaded facts in brief, sans the inessentials need be
adverted to for the required grip of the issues. The
respondent company has three sugar mills in the name and
style of “Mawana Sugar Works, Mawana, Distt. Meerut,”
“Nanglamnal Sugar Complex, Nanglamal, Distt. Meerut and
“Titawi Sugar Complex, Titiwi, Distt. Muzaffarnagar” which
are engaged in the manufacture of crystal sugar through
vacuum pan process and produce molasses as a by-product.
Admittedly the storage, sale, supply and distribution of
3
molasses within the State of U.P. is governed by the Uttar
Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short,
hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), whereunder in
terms of Section 8, the Controller of Molasses, with the prior
approval of the State Government, is empowered to issue
order to a sugar mill for transfer or sale or supply in the
prescribed manner, such quantity of molasses to such
persons, as may be specified therein. It is a matter of record
that every year, the State Government issues “Molasses
Policy”, whereby it prescribes the mode and manner in which
the molasses produced by the sugar mills would be dealt
with. The policy invariably provides for reservation of certain
portion of the molasses produced by the sugar mills for sale
and supply to the country liquor manufacturers.
5. The State Government, for the Molasses Year 2015-16,
vide its communication No. 39/2016/1501/E-2/13-2016-74/
2015 dated 24.6.2016 issued the “Molasses Policy” (for short
also “Policy”) for the said year. The Policy provided for a
reservation of 25% of the molasses produced to be supplied to
4
the country liquor manufacturers as per the formula
mentioned therein.
6. The parties are at issue on the interpretation of the
above Policy. Whereas, according to the respondent, the
reservation of 25% would apply to the balance stock of
molasses left over after its captive consumption for its
distillery, as propounded in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs.
1
State of U.P . and others , the assertion of the appellants
herein is that having regard to the content and purport of
the Policy, the reservation of 25% would be on the total
production of molasses, to be adjusted eventually on the
basis of the balance stock computable in terms of the formula
defined in the Policy.
7. The pleaded case of the respondent is that the entire
requirement of molasses for operating its distillery is met from
the stock produced in its sugar mills and that dealing with
previous Molasses Year 2015-16, the balance stock of
molasses left over after such captive consumption was made
1
(2007) 8 SCC 338
5
available for supply to the country liquor manufacturers in
terms of the Policy for that year.
8. According to it, in the Molasses Year 2015-16, the
production of molasses has been much less for various
reasons and though it had consumed a portion of the stock
for its captive consumption in its distilleries till 6.6.2016,
when the operations had to be suspended due to rain, it was
anticipated that the whole of the remaining stock would be
utilised in its distilleries and no balance stock would be left
for reservation or supply to the country-made liquor
manufacturers. Though stating the above in details, it had
made a representation on 5.7.2016 before the Controller of
Molasses highlighting that the entire stock of molasses
produced during the Molasses Year 2015-16 would be
unavoidably utilised for its captive consumption in its
distillery, the said authority by the order dated 27.7.2016
without recording any reason has directed compliance of the
Policy for the Molasses Year 2015-16, and thereby for all
practical purposes has rejected the request made.
6
9. The appellants in their pleadings in reply, while
endorsing the Policy for the year 2015-16 and the reservation
of 25% of the molasses produced during that year, did inter
alia underline as well that in terms of the Act, the State
Government was authorised and empowered to
direct/regulate, control, storage, supply, gradation of price of
molasses. It was elaborated that the aim and object of the
fixation of reservation and to maintain the exist ratio of
molasses was to ensure proper availability of the commodity
for the country liquor distilleries each month so that the
revenue earned by the State from country liquor was not
adversely affected for the financial year 2016-17. It
underlined that the Minimum Guarantee Quantity of country
liquor in the financial year 2016-17 was about 32.02 crore
bulk liter by which a revenue of Rs. 8037.42 crores was likely
to be generated and for that purpose, the estimated
requirement of molasses was 52 lakhs quintal. That supply of
quality molasses of the above amount was uncompromisingly
essential to make available to the public, safe and potable
7
country liquor at an appropriate price, so as to guard against
consumption of spurious stuff manufactured illegally and
prevent fatal accidents and injuries to public health, has been
emphasized. The appellants thus, sought to flag that the
regulatory regime for reservation of molasses for production
of country liquor was not only to generate revenue for the
State Government but was also comprehended in the interest
of public life, health and safety. It was highlighted as well
that in absence of reservation of molasses, the sugar mills
would be at liberty to hold the stock thereof in order to earn
high profit at the end of the year or to convert it into free sale
stock which would dislocate the supply to the country liquor
manufacture distilleries, thus adversely affecting the
availability of the safe and quality country liquor for the
general pubic. After referring to the statistics pertaining to
the respondent company with regard, amongst others to its
opening balance, production and captive consumption over a
period of four years from 2012-13 to 2015-16, the appellants
endeavoured to demonstrate that in all these years, the
8
respondent company had been left with surplus
stock/balance stock after utilising the rest for its captive
consumption. Due reference was made as well of the Policy
and in particular of the computation of balance stock to
conclude that the impugned action was unassailable.
10. The High Court, as the impugned judgment would
attest, premised its determination, chiefly on the decision of
1
this Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills , which, as would unfold
hereinafter, was founded on the policy distinctly different
from one, formulated for the Molasses Year 2015-16. Be that
as it may, according to the High Court, the Policy was based
on the directions given by this Court in the above
pronouncement. It found fault with the impugned order dated
27.7.2016 requiring compliance by the respondent of the
Policy, as devoid of reasons. It perceived the stand of the
appellants, to be that the entire excess stock had to be
reserved by the respondent for supply to the distilleries
manufacturing liquor, without however referring to in
particular the concept of balance stock, as explained in the
9
Policy and held, in terms of the decision in Dhampur Sugar
1
Mills , that the respondent was required to reserve 25% only
of the excess stock left over after its captive consumption. It
noted the figures representing the opening stock, production
of molasses and the captive consumption thereof for the
Molasses Year 2015-16, which was based on the actual
consumption in the previous Molasses Year 2014-15 and
calculated the balance stock for the Molasses Year 2015-16 to
be 15,994 M.T. and held that the respondent would be
required to reserve 25% thereof only for supply to the
distilleries, manufacturing country liquor. The contention of
the respondent that it may be allowed to consume the entire
stock of molasses was rejected and in absence of particulars
furnished by it, accepted its captive consumption to be as in
the Molasses Year 2014-15. Accordingly, the respondent was
required to retain 25% of its balance stock, after its captive
consumption, to be reserved for supply to the distilleries
manufacturer country liquor as per the Policy. To reiterate,
the appellant was also granted the liberty to offer to the
10
authorities concerned, in case, it required further quantity of
molasses for its captive consumption during the Molasses
Year 2015-16.
11. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the
appellants has emphatically asserted that the impugned
judgment proceeds on an erroneous reading of the decision
1
rendered by this Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills and a
patently wrong interpretation of the Policy and is thus, clearly
unsustainable in law and on facts. The learned senior
counsel maintained that the policy analysed and adverted to
1
by this Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills was distinctly
different in its text and tenor from the Policy in question, for
which no analogy therefrom was possible. According to him,
the Policy, though at places, has reference of the observations
1
in Dhampur Sugar Mills , it stands on its own strength and
if correctly interpreted, would squarely defeat the assertions of
the respondent and the findings recorded in the impugned
1
judgment. The decision given in Dhampur Sugar Mills has
no decisive bearing at all on the Policy and thus, the starting
11
premise of the impugned judgment is patently flawed,
rendering it indefensible, he urged. Apart from reiterating the
underlying objectives of the Policy in espousal of public
interest as pleaded, Mr Dwivedi, referring to the concept of
balance stock, as explicated in the Policy, insisted that a
manufacturer of molasses, was at the outset, obligatorily
required to keep apart 25% of its total production in the
Molasses Year 2015-2016, to be adjusted, eventually subject
to its captive consumption for its distillery and in the face of
such unequivocal mandate thereof, any interpretation either
contrary thereto or in unwarranted moderation thereof, is
untenable in law.
12. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the
respondent in confutation of the above, argued that the
elucidation of the policy offered by the High Court, based on
1
the enunciation in Dhampur Sugar Mills is unimpeachable.
According to her, the interpretation of the Policy, as extended
by the appellants, besides being utterly wrong, if accepted,
would amongst others leave the respondent at the end of
12
Molasses Year 2015-16, without any stock whatsoever of
molasses to embark upon its manufacturing process for the
next year, which is inconceivable. She has urged that the
1
profuse reference of the decision in Dhampur Sugar Mills in
the Policy makes it abundantly clear that the exposition of the
policy, as made therein, was consciously made applicable to
the Policy involved and thus the respondent at the most in
terms thereof was required to reserve only 25% of the stock of
molasses left in balance after its captive consumption to the
fullest extent.
13. The disparate pleadings and the contrasting assertions
have received our due consideration. As a plain reading of the
impugned judgment would testify, that it is substantially
1
structured on the rendering in Dhampur Sugar Mills , apt it
would be at the outset to advert thereto, so as to clear the
deck for the ultimate adjudication.
14. The parties are not at issue that the Act has installed a
legal regime whereunder the State Government may issue
necessary orders/directions for control, storage, supply,
13
gradation and prices of molasses and that the Policy and the
orders impugned do not suffer from any lack of authority. To
reiterate, neither the validity of the Act nor that of the Policy
has been assailed and hence, the instant exercise is limited to
the dissension on the interpretation of the Policy in its
application to the respondent and other sugar mills equally
situated. To address the issue and having regard to the
pre-supposition on which the impugned judgment has been
passed, it would be expedient to note in seriatim, the
1
rendition in Dhampur Sugar Mills and the relevant
portions of the Policy 2015-2016 .
1
15. In Dhampur Sugar Mills , the assailment pertained to
an order of the State of U.P. directing the appellant under the
Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964
(abbreviated as “the Act”) to supply 20% of the molasses
produced by its sugar mills for manufacturing “country-made
liquor” by distilleries for the financial years 2003-04 and
2004-05 as well as the consequential show cause notices for
prosecution, as upheld by the jurisdictional High Court. The
14
appellant did have a sugar mill in the State together with a
distillery which manufactured ethyl alcohol, used for blending
of petrol, manufacture of chemicals and rectified spirit for
medicines. It also had similar business at other places. The
main contention of the appellant was that though it was
producing molasses, the entire production was required by it
for captive consumption and even that was not sufficient for
which it, with the permission of government, had been
importing the commodity from other states as well as from
other countries. It therefore reasoned that as it was left with
no balance or extra stock of molasses for supply to the
distilleries manufacturing country-made liquor, the
authorities could not compel it to supply molasses vide the
impugned orders and repudiated the impugned action to be
illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and also being violative of
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
16. In refutation, the plea of the government was that in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, it was open to the
authorities to ask the appellant to supply 20% molasses for
15
the purpose of manufacturing country-made liquor and thus
the impugned orders were perfectly in accord with the
mandate of the enactment and by no means could be termed
as illegal and unlawful. The High Court, to reiterate, held
that the reservation for 20% of molasses and the directions
issued to the appellant to supply such stock for
manufacturing country-made liquor were neither contrary to
law nor against public policy and thus rejected the
impugnment of the appellant.
17. Before this Court, it was principally canvassed that the
impugned order(s) were expressly clear and required a sugar
mill to reserve 20% of the molasses from the balance stock i.e.
the left over after the actual consumption by the industry, for
manufacturing country liquor and as the appellant did not
have such balance stock of molasses, even for its captive
consumption and had to import molasses from other states in
the country and abroad, it could not be compelled to reserve
20% molasses for manufacturing country liquor by other
distilleries.
16
18. This Court, while noticing that the constitutional
validity of the Act had not been challenged, the same having
2
been upheld earlier in SIEL Limited vs. Union of India
wherein the statute was held to be within the legislative
competence of the State and also not inconsistent with the
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951, noted
further clause (3) of the order 9.6.2004 relied upon by the
High Court to partially uphold the challenge. The, original
text of the order impugned being in Hindi, the translation
thereof, as referred to in the judgment, is extracted
hereinbelow:
“ 25 . The English translation supplied by the
appellant at Annexure P-3 reads thus:
“ From the balance stock of molasses with each
sugar mill, 20% of molasses shall be reserved for
the distilleries manufacturing country liquor. The
sugar mills having their own distilleries shall not
be covered within this reservation to the extent
that after the actual consumption of molasses in
their captive distillery, 20% reservation shall be
applicable on the balance stock.”
19. Having regard to the above quoted text, this Court ruled
2 (1998(7) SCC 26
17
that the same applied only to the excess stock of molasses,
i.e., molasses which was in excess of and not used for captive
consumption by the sugar factory and was thus “the balance
stock” and sustained the assertion of the appellant to that
extent. This Court minuted as well the plea of the appellant
that it had no excess stock of molasses and had to import the
said commodity from other sources to meet its requirement for
manufacturing industrial alcohol, after obtaining such
permission granted by the Central Government as well as the
State Government. This Court therefore declared that the
case of the appellant in the singular fact situation as
projected, did not fall within the purview of clause (3) as above
and, therefore, could not have been invoked by the authorities
against it. It therefore, determined that the High Court was
not right in holding that all sugar mills were bound to supply
20% of molasses under Clause (3) of the Government Order
2004 irrespective of the stock possessed. The other
contentions addressed being not of any significance for the
instant adjudication are not being adverted to. Suffice it to
18
set-out hereinabove the operative portion of the decision as
contained in paragraphs 53 and 54 thereof:
“53. For the foregoing reasons, in our
opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed
and the order of the High Court deserves to
be set-aside. It is, accordingly, held that the
directive issued by the respondents would
not apply in case there is no balance stock of
molasses with any sugar mill. The
respondent authorities have no right to
compel such sugar mills to supply 20%
molasses for the purpose of manufacturing
country liquor.
54. We may, however, make one thing clear.
As seen above, the assertion of the appellant
was that it has no balance stock and even for
its own requirement, it has to import
molasses. On the other hand, the allegation
of the respondents is that excess and balance
molasses was available with the appellant
which it had sold in open market. The High
Court, in the impugned order has not decided
the question finally. Quoting certain
paragraphs from the writ petition, the High
Court observed that there was no proper
pleading and as such, the Court was not in a
position to go into the question. It is,
therefore, made clear that it is open to the
respondents to take appropriate action in
accordance with law on the basis of our
decision and observation made in this
judgment.”
19
20. The records testify that the said Policy 2015-16
was published by a Circular/Communication
No.39/2016/1501/E-2/Thirteen-2016-74/2015 in
vernacular and a translated copy thereof has been
placed on records and produced in course of the
arguments. As it had been attested on behalf of the
appellants by Mr. Dwivedi that the document produced
at the hearing bears the correct translated version of
the original, the same would be referred to. The
relevant excerpt therefrom is quoted hereinbelow:
“In this regard, I have been directed to
say that suggestions/proposals received
from you in pursuance to the aforesaid
th th
letters dated 9 November, 2015; 20
nd nd
January, 2016; 2 February, 2016; 2
th rd
April, 2016; 4 May, 2016 and 23 May,
2016, were placed in the meetings of the
Molasses Advisory Committee headed by
Chief Secretary held on 31.10.2015 and
15.03.2016 and the same were
considered in the said meetings and in
furtherance of the same, following
Molasses Policy has been framed for the
year 2015-16:
20
(1) Every sugar mill in the molasses year
2015-16 will keep 25% of the molasses,
produced, reserved and those sugar mills
whose distilleries are situated in the
State will apply following reservation on
the quantity of molasses produced by
them in the year 2015-16:
(i) If the balance stock of the group of
captive sugar mills exceeds reserved
quantity (25%), then in that case full
reservation shall apply to them with
effect from the commencement of the
molasses year as per directions
contained in paragraph 47 of the Order
dated 24.09.2007 passed in Civil Appeal
No.4466 of 2007 titled M/s Dhampur
Sugar Mills Limited Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others. Because it will not
create any shortage in their own
consumption of the molasses (in view of
the quantity of self consumption of the
molasses year 2014-15);
(ii) Whereas in case the balance stock of
the group of captive sugar mills is lesser
than the reserved quantity, then in that
case reservation shall apply to them with
effect from commencement of the
molasses year and quantity of
reservation shall be limited to the
quantity of balance stock as it will not
result in any shortage of their
self-consumption (in view of the quantity
of self consumption of the molasses year
2014-15) as per directions contained in
paragraph 46 of the Order dated
21
24.09.2007 passed in Civil Appeal
No.4466/07- titled M/s Dhampur Sugar
Mills Limited versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others. Because it will not
create any shortage in their own
consumption of the molasses (in view of
the quantity of self consumption of the
molasses year 2014-15);
(iii) Whereas in case the balance stock of
the group of captive sugar mills is nil i.e.
to say that their consumption of
molasses exceeds the quantity of
molasses available to them
(self-consumption based on molasses
year 2014-15), then in that case no
reservation shall apply to them as per
directions contained in paragraph 46 of
the Order dated 24.09.2007 passed in
Civil Appeal No.4466/2007- titled M/s
Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.
Determination of the balance stock:
Balance stock has been elaborated by
the Honorable Supreme Court in para 20
of its Judgment and Order dated
24.09.2007 passed in Civil Appeal
No.4466/2007- titled M/s Dhampur
Sugar Mills Limited Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, which reads as
under -
“In our opinion, however, Clause
(3) applies only to excess stock of
molasses that is, molasses which
is in excess of and not used for
22
captive consumption by sugar
factory and is thus balance stock.”
Therefore, balance stock for the molasses
year 2015-16 = unreserved preliminary
stock of the group of mills in the
molasses year 2015-16 + production in
the molasses year 2015-16 – self
consumption of molasses in the
molasses year 2015-16 (equivalent to
self-consumption of molasses up to
31.10.2015 in the molasses year
2014-15).
(2). The aforesaid percentage of
reservation is fixed with the condition
that availability and necessity of
molasses will be reviewed after every
quarter and if there occurs any change
(for increase or decrease) in the
percentage of reservation due to
availability of molasses and necessity of
country liquor, then State Government
will take an appropriate decision
regarding change in the reservation
percentage of the molasses, after
considering each and every fact in
detail.”
21. It would be apparent from the quoted text that for the
Molasses Year 2015-16, every sugar mill, at the first place,
would have to keep 25% of the molasses produced, reserved
and those sugar mills, whose distilleries are situated in the
23
State, would apply the following norms of reservation:
(a) If the balance stock exceeds the reserved quantity
(25%), then in that case, full reservation would apply
to them w.e.f. the commencement of the molasses year.
(b) In case the balance stock is less than the reserved
quantity then, reservation would apply w.e.f. the
commencement of the molasses year, but would be
limited to the quantity of balance stock.
(c) If the balance stock is nil i.e if the captive
consumption of molasses exceeds the quantity
available to them, no reservation would apply.
22. As all the clauses would demonstrate, reference of
paragraphs 46 and 47 of the decision in Dhampur Sugar
1
Mills has been referred to, highlighting that in all the
eventualities, the captive consumption of molasses by the
sugar mills would thereby not be curtailed or prejudicially
affected.
23. With reference to “balance stock” as well, in the
24
1
decision in Dhampur Sugar Mills , following observation in
paragraph 20 (corresponds to para 27 of the reported
judgment, as above) has been alluded to:
“In our opinion, however, Clause (3) applies
only to excess stock of molasses, that is,
molasses which is in excess of and not
used for captive consumption by sugar
factory and is thus the balance stock.”
24. The Policy determined the balance stock as hereunder:
Balance stock for the Molasses Year 2015-16 = unreserved
preliminary stock of the group of mills in the Molasses Year
2015-16 + production in the Molasses Year 2015-16 –
self-consumption of molasses in the Molasses Year 2015-16
(equivalent of self-consumption of molasses up to 31.10.2015
in the Molasses Year 2014-15).
25. Thus the balance stock for the purpose of the Policy in
essence is the stock that would be left over after utilization of
the commodity for captive consumption in the Molasses Year
2015-16 from the sum total of the unreserved preliminary
produce of the same molasses year and the production thereof
25
in the said year. The computation of balance stock though
relevant to eventually decide as to the extent of reservation
that would be effective to ascertain the volume of supply to
other distilleries manufacturing country-made liquor, it
however does not in any way support the contention of the
respondent that irrespective of the eventualities in the
aforementioned clauses (a), (b) and (c), the reservation would
be of 25% only of such balance stock and not otherwise. This
is in view of the unambiguous prescript of the Policy that the
reservation would be of 25% of the molasses produced, which
by no means, can be construed to connote that such
reservation had been contemplated to be only of the balance
stock left over after the captive consumption of the sugar
mill(s) concerned. Such a construction would be a total
misreading of the Policy and would border on perversity.
26. To recount, clause (3) of the order dated 09.06.2004,
which fell for scrutiny of this Court in Dhampur Sugar
1
Mills was in following terms:
“25. The English translation supplied by the
26
appellant at Annexure P-3 reads thus:
“From the balance stock of molasses
with each sugar mill, 20% of molasses
shall be reserved for the distilleries
manufacturing country liquor. The
sugar mills having their own distilleries
shall not be covered within this
reservation to the extent that after the
actual consumption of molasses in their
captive distillery, 20% reservation shall
be applicable on the balance stock.”
27. This is both in text and content totally dissimilar to the
above excerpt extracted from the Policy for the Molasses Year
2015-16. Whereas in the order under challenge in Dhampur
1
Sugar Mills , it is crystal clear that the policy intended
reservation to the extent of 20% of the molasses from the
balance stock with the sugar mill, in apparent
contradistinction, in the Policy for the Molasses Year 2015-16,
the mandate is for 25% reservation of the total molasses
produced. The adjustment, if any, in the extent of reservation
to be eventually made depending on the quantum of balance
stock, in our comprehension, would not alter the essence of
the Policy in the manner as pleaded by the respondent. The
27
pith and purport of the two policies, being strikingly at
variance, no analogy is permissible.
28. A plain reading of paragraphs 46/47 of the decision in
1
Dhampur Sugar Mills , (as referred to the Policy) which in
its reported version in (2007) 8 SCC 338, correspond to
paragraphs 53 & 54 authenticate the above deduction. In the
overall context, we are abundantly clear that such reference
was unwarranted and, in any case, had been made only to
indicate the notion that physically the balance stock would be
the stock that would be left over after the captive consumption
of molasses by the sugar mill concerned and has no bearing
at all on the computation of balance stock as envisaged in the
Policy and and in no manner would guide the interpretation
thereof. In that view of the matter, the presupposition of the
High Court that the Policy for the Molasses Year 2015-16 was
1
based on the decision in Dhampur Sugar Mills is patently
incorrect. Such policies being an annual event, contingent on
contemporaneous exigencies and within the realm of executive
discernment, the High Court, in our estimate, had fallen in
28
gross error in proceeding on that premise and issuing the
consequential directions as made. Noticeably, the Policy
consciously underlines that in any event thereby, the captive
consumption of molasses by the sugar mills is not affected at
all, so much so that if the balance stock is more than the
extent of reservation, the whole of it would apply, but if the
balance stock is less than the quantity to be reserved, the
reservation would work only to the extent of the balance stock
and not in excess thereof. As the balance stock, if any,
conceptually would be the residue after the utilization by way
of captive consumption, in absence of the challenge to the
Policy to be illegal, unfair, unjust, unreasonable or
unconstitutional, the plea of the respondent that the
reservation is unmistakably limited to 25% of the balance
stock under all situations is visibly flawed and fallacious. The
measure of the captive consumption for the Molasses Year
2015-16, on the basis of such utilization for the Molasses Year
2014-15, in absence of any overwhelming material to the
contrary, also cannot be faulted with.
29
29. In the wake up of the above, we are of the unhesitant
opinion that the impugned judgment being based on a total
misreading of the Policy for the Molasses Year 2015-16 and
1
also of the verdict in Dhampur Sugar Mills in its application
to the attendant facts and circumstances, it is clearly
insupportable and unsound in law and is thus liable to be set
aside, which we hereby do.
30. As a consequence, the operative directions contained
therein are also annulled. The appellants would ensure that
the Policy is implemented in its letter and spirit. The
respondent would abide by the same and extend its
cooperation without fail. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
…........................................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
…........................................J.
[AMITAVA ROY]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 18, 2017.
30
ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.11 SECTION XI
For judgment
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).3244/2017
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MAWANA SUGARS LTD. Respondent(s)
(HEARD BY : HON. ARUN MISHRA AND HON. AMITAVA ROY, JJ.)
Date : 18-08-2017 This matter was called on for pronouncement
of JUDGMENT today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun
Mishra and His Lordship.
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of signed Reportable
Judgment.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(B.PARVATHI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)