IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.440 OF 2019(GM-RES) Between:
M/s.Sharada Sugars Private Limited, Corporate Office #301, ‘Sapthagruha’ Aparment, 2nd Floor, 16th Floor, Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 003.
By its Director & Authorised Signatory – Prakash Belagalli, Age 41 years.
… Petitioner (By Sri.Hemant Chandangoudar, Advocate) And:
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and FD, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. By its Chief Director (Sugar).
2. The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary to Department of Commerce & Industries, M.S.Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
…Respondents (By Sri. Gowthamdev C. Ullal, CGC for R1; Sri. B.Balakrishna, AGA for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-H and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Hemant Chandangoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Gowthamdev C. Ullal, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri.B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to return the performance bank guarantee executed by Union Bank of India to the petitioner.
4. The facts giving raise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner made a request to the State Government for implementation of the project for setting up of the new sugar factory by extending the time by another two years as the petitioner was unable to set up sugar factory on account of the fact that the land owners had not handed over the possession of the lands in question to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted a representation to respondent No.1 to extend the time for commencement of the commercial production or to return the bank guarantee offered by it since it could not commence the commercial production for the reasons not attributable to it. However, respondent No.1 by impugned order dated 20.12.2018 not only derecognized the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, but also confiscated the bank guarantee. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to the notification dated 24.08.2016 submitted that in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sugarcane (Control) Order was amended, which came into force on 24.08.2016. Clause 6C of the amended Sugarcane (Control) Order, 2016 provides that the time limit for setting up of industrial unit including extension is seven years and if the industrial unit could not be set up due to reasons beyond the control of entrepreneur, then the performance guarantee shall be forfeited. It is further submitted that the impugned order be quashed and the competent authority be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the notification dated 24.08.2016. The aforesaid prayer has not been fairly opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.
6. In view of the submissions made and taking into account the fact that while passing the impugned order dated 20.12.2018, the effect and impact of the Sugarcane (Control) (Amendment) Order, 2016, has not been taken into account by the competent authority, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the notification dated 24.08.2016 by which the Sugarcane (Control) Order, was amended and in particular, in the light of the provisions of Clause 6C of the Sugarcane (Control) (Amendment) Order, 2016, by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from today.
7. Till the matter is considered, the ad- interim order granted by a Bench of this Court shall continue.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-
AAJ: W.P.No.440/2019 25.09.2019 ORDERS ON I.A.NO.3/2019 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that in the order dated 14.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.440/2019 in paragraph No.5, the word ‘forfeited’ shall be read as ‘returned’.
This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 14.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.440/2019.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3/2019 is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-