SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Discusses interpretation of statutes, retrospective application of amendments, and principles of delay and laches in writ petitions.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:22566-DB
Decision Date: 06-06-2025
List of Laws
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Constitution of India, 1949; Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951; Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; The Air (Pollution and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016; Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949; Food Safety and Standards Authority of India License under FSS Act, 2006; Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulations of Crushing and Sugarcane Supply) Order, 1984; Companies Act, 2013; Civil Procedure Code, 1908
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: The judgment mentions that the petitioner is a Co-operative Sugar Factory registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (referred to as "the MCS Act"). No specific sections or rules of this Act are discussed or interpreted in detail.
- Constitution of India, 1949: Article 226 of the Constitution of India is mentioned as the basis for the writ petition. The petition prays for a declaration that the Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum (IEM) be de-recognized.
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955: The judgment refers to Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as the source of power for issuing the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. It is mentioned that clause 6A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, was issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The judgment also mentions that the Director (Sugar) Government of India vide order dated 31 January 2024 acted under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with clause No.4 and 5 of the SCO 1966.
- Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951: The judgment notes that the sugar industries were deleted from the list of industries requiring compulsory licensing under the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, with effect from 31 August 1998. The judgment also mentions Section 29B(1) of the said 1951 Act in the context of Press Note No.12 dated 31 August 1998 and Notification dated 11 September 1998.
- Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966: The judgment extensively discusses the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 (SCO 1966). Clause 6C of the SCO 1966 is central to the petitioner's argument, claiming that the IEM should be de-recognized due to legal fiction created by this clause. The petitioner contends that clause 6A read with clause 6C of the SCO 1966 requires a minimum period of four years for commercial production, and failure to comply results in automatic de-recognition of the IEM. The judgment also refers to the Sugar Control (Amendment) Order, 2006, which amended the SCO 1966. The judgment quotes Clause 6A, which restricts setting up new sugar factories within a specified radius. The judgment also quotes Explanation 1 to Clause 6A defining an existing sugar factory, Explanation 2 defining a new sugar factory, Explanation 3 regarding the measurement of minimum distance, and Explanation 4 detailing the effective steps for setting up a sugar factory. The judgment also quotes Clauses 6B, 6C, 6D, and 6E of the SCO 1966.
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: The judgment mentions that the MPCB granted consent to establish the sugar unit under Section 25 of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
- The Air (Pollution and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: The judgment mentions that the MPCB granted consent to establish the sugar unit under Section 21 of The Air (Pollution and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
- Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016: The judgment mentions that the MPCB granted consent to establish the sugar unit under Rule 6 of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. The judgment also mentions that the MPCB granted authorization under Rule 18(7) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement ) Rules, 2016.
- Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949: The judgment mentions that the Collector, Satara, issued a License bearing No.24/2023-24 in form M-I (Rule 3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 in the name of Shivneri. It is contended that under such license, Shivneri is permitted to possess and sell molasses under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
- Food Safety and Standards Authority of India License under FSS Act, 2006: The judgment mentions that the Central Licensing Authority, Government of India issued a license bearing No.115239970000475 as per Form C of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India License under FSS Act, 2006.
- Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulations of Crushing and Sugarcane Supply) Order, 1984: The judgment mentions that the Licensing Authority / the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State issued a License for crushing case (Season 2023-24) bearing No.137/2023-24 in Form B as per clause No.4(5) in exercise of powers vested by the Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulations of Crushing and Sugarcane Supply) Order, 1984.
- Companies Act, 2013: The judgment mentions that Shivneri submitted a Certificate of Incorporation showing that Shivneri was incorporated as a limited company as per the Companies Act, 2013.
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908: The judgment refers to Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that the present petition is barred by principles analogous to it.
🔒 For Members Only