Brahmanand Sugar Jaggery Industries vs Union of India

Anand Byrareddy, J.—This Court by its order dated 30/08/201 has already declared that the Industrial Entreprenuers Memorandum (hereinafter referred as the "IEM", for brevity) issued in favour of respondent No. 6 has lapsed and as a consequence IEM as on the date of the application stood de-recognized.

In this regard there is no dispute that the IEM which was issued, in question, in favour of respondent No. 6 has lapsed. The contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of the order passed at Annexure "S" wherein the authority took a view that in view of IEM having been issued in favour of respondent No. 6, the petitioner''s application for an IEM could not be considered, was misconceived on the primary ground that the IEM issued in favour of respondent No. 6 at Annexure "D" dated 08/02/2006 stood de-recognized and it is inexplicable that the IEM at Annexure "N" has been issued in lieu of IEM dated 08/02/2006. Such issuance of an IEM is not contemplated in law. Any IEM issued afresh, would be against an application accompanied by a fresh distance certificate. Purportedly the IEM issued at Annexure ''N" is pursuant to the distance certificate obtained at Annexure ''K" which, inexplicably, refers to an earlier distance certificate and curiously would also declare that the same "holds good"(sic) as a distance certificate in respect of the IEM for the year 2009. This, the learned counsel, would submit, is contrary to the mandate under Clause 6A of the Sugarcane (Control) Orders, 1966 which requires that the minimum distance shall be determined as measured by the Survey of India as indicated at Explanation 3 to Clause 6A of the Sugarcane (Control) Orders, 1966, and in the absence of any such measurement by the Survey of India, the said certificate issued at Annexure "K" is invalid and would not be in accordance with law. Hence, the IEM having been issued in favour of respondent No. 6 in the year 2009 was invalid and inconsistent. Hence, the order passed at Annexure "S" declaring that during the subsistence of IEM in favour of respondent No. 6, the application of the petitioner could not be considered is not tenable and ought to be quashed.

After having heard the learned counsel Sri. Budihal appearing for the petitioner and Shri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for respondent No. 6, it is evident that there is no IEM of respondent No. 6 in existence as on date since respondent No. 6 has not been in a position to commence any activity of setting up a sugar factory, in view of the pending writ petition. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in view of the impugned order at Annexure "S", the petitioner has again not been in a position to commence any activity and it is the endeavor of the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that in view of the ineffective and invalid IEM in favour of respondent No. 6, as on the date of the application of the petitioner, it should be taken that the petitioner''s application has been revived by virtue of the same being invalid.

Having heard the contentions on which it is sought to be demonstrated that the IEM was invalid, it is the firm opinion of this Court that there is no invalidity. Explanation 3 to Clause 6A of the Sugarcane (Control) Orders, 1966, which would only require the distance to be in terms of the map prepared by the Survey of India for the region. Since the initial distance certificate accompanying the application for the IEM for the year 2006 was apparently with reference to the measurement of Survey of India. The requirement of yet another fresh certificate or the physical measurement may not have been warranted. This, especially, in the light of the circumstance that the authorities would be fully aware of any other unit seeking to step up a sugar factory within the reserved area, in the absence of the same it was possible for the authorities to accept the distance certificate which was a mere duplication of the distance certificate issued and the IEM application for the year 2006 was accompanied by such a certificate, there is no infirmity in the application for the year 2009 not being accompanied by a fresh distance certificate. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

In the result both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 would be in a position to make fresh applications seeking IEM, accompanied by such certificates as may be required in law and it is for the authorities to pass appropriate orders thereon.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.