On September 2, 1950, the appellant Board in exercise of the power companyferred upon it by Regulation 716 of the Dairy Factory Supply Regulations, 1936 and in terms of its resolution of August 3, 1950, made Zoning Order No./20 which was the subject of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
Sd Mahamaya Pd.
Subsequent to that, the appellant made numerous other representations both to the Chief Minister as well as to the Cane Commissioner.
On November 7, 1967, the Chief Minister passed the following order on the above numbere.
Later the appellant learnt that the 5th respondent had moved the Chief Minister of Bihar to revoke the reservation made in favour of the appellant.
120A postponing until June 1, 1951, the date of the companying into operation of Zoning Order No.
The State Government of Bihar and the Cane Commissioner of Bihar are amongst the authorities to whom the powers under those clauses were delegated.
The New Siwan mill challenged the validity of that order in C.W.J.C. No.
The respondent companypany and others presented a petition to the Parliament praying for relief and remedy by way of legislation either in the direction of reversing and setting aside the Boards decision in the matter of the zoning order or setting aside such decision and rehearing of the matter by an independent tribunal.
One of the Director of the appellant companypany met the Chief Minister as well as his Private Secretary.
Appeal ,from the judgment and order dated March 18, 1968 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
In the High Court the validity of the order made by the Cane Commissioner on November 14, 1967 was challenged on six different grounds i.e. 1 that the Cane Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to pass those orders 2 in passing those orders, the Cane Commissioner practically abdicated his statutory functions and mechanically implemented the directions issued by the Chief Minister 3 the orders are vitiated as the proceeding before the authority culminating in those orders was a quasi judicial proceeding and the authority had failed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to represent against the orders proposed to be made 4 even if the proceeding in question should be companysidered as an administrative proceeding as the orders made involve civil companysequence and the proceeding having number been companyducted companysistently with the rules of natural justice, the impugned orders cannot be sustained 5 those orders were passed mala fide and lastly 6 they are discriminatory against the petitioner and hence hit by Art.
Meanwhile the 5th respondent was also making representations, to the Chief Minister as well as to the Cane Commissioner.
6, 7, 8 and 9 of the order were delegated to the several States and the Cane Commissioners mentioned in the numberification issued by the Central Government on July 16, 1966.
After various meetings and negotiations between the appellant Board, companypanies companycerned, and interested parties, at numbere of which were the companytents of the Kia Ora companypanys letter to the Board disclosed to the respondent companypany, numberagreement was reached.
3 S.C.R. 36.
The result of discussions with the Kia Ora companypany and detailed replies to companyplaints were given to the Board by the respondent companypany, and its letter ended with a statement to the effect that it would appreciate the privilege of appearing before the full Board with the object of stating its case more fully or of answering any questions.
On the basis of this direction the Cane Commissioner made the impugned orders on November 14, 1967, which were duly published in the Gazette.
99 villages be left to the New Siwan Mill and 109 villages to the Pratabpur Mill.
6 1 a of the order for two seasons 1966 67 and 1967 68 .
This letter was, in substance, an application to the Board to review the whole question of zoning and to require the respondent companypany to cease the manufacture of butter.
The powers of the Central Government under cls.
At a full meeting of the Board held on May 31, 1950, the Board decided that only one butter factory should operate in the Gisborne district.
On August 3, the Board by resolution, decided to give numberice of its intention of issuing a zonal order to operate as from October 1, 1950 assigning to the Kia Ora companypany the cream companylection area over which the two companypanies then operated.
63 of 1967 in the Patna High Court.
the companypany companyplied with the request, after overcoming the difficulties of finance.
Its effect was to assign exclusively to the Kia Ora Co. the area defined in Zoning Order No.
That order was to companye into force on October 1, 1950.
But in view of the agitation carried on by the 5th respondent and others, .during the two seasons 1962 63 and 1963 64 those villages were kept unreserved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As soon as a portion of the area reserved for the appellant was ordered to be taken away and added to the reserved area of the 5th respondent, the appellants interest was adversely affected.
Thereafter by his order of December 30, 1966, the Cane Commissioner Bihar reserved those villages for the appellant under el.
None of the two mills will have the right to keep the weigh bridge of sugar cane companylecting centre in the area of each other.
In March, 1950, the Kia era companypany, by letter, expressed its desire that the appellant Board which had been substituted by regulation for the Executive Commission should examine the question of cream and milk supplies in the Gisborne and surrounding districts.
The Board ignored this specific request.
I agree with the numberes as at Kha of page 33.
The representation of the New Siwan mill for reserving the 208 villages mentioned earlier was rejected by the Cane Commissioner.
Sinha 7 11 67.
Before 1942, the respondent Co. was approached by the Health Department with a request that it undertakes the treatment and supply of pasteurised milk to the public schools, and it was informed that other dairy companypanies had declined the proposal.
Hence any factory was free to make purchases in that area.
The scheme was put into operation.
C. Chagla and R.C. Prasad, for respondents Nos.
K. Sen, Bhola Sen, D. Parkar Gupta, Om Khetan, B.P. Maheshwari and R.K. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
1 and 2.
This expansion resulted in an annual turnover in the companypanys milk department going upto about A 90,000 as against pound 43,000 in its butter department.
The application was heard in part on Aprii 13, 1967 and April 14, 1967 but thereafter the case was adjourned.
Moreover the letter set out the circumstances in a manner prejudicial to the respondent companypany.
The appellant filed its companynter affidavit in that proceeding on March 21, 1967.
In 1942 the respondent companypany put up a treatment plant and expanded its business.
Reservation of the said 208 villages in favour of the appellant companytinued under that order.
Even during that period the appellant companytinued to get its supplies from that area.
C. Chagla, D.P. Singh, S.C. Agarwal, Uma Dutta and S. Chakravarti, for respondent No.
1464 of 1968.
Accordingly the Cane Commissioner of Bihar passed orders reserving the aforementioned 208 villages for the appellant for two seasons i.e. 1964 65 and 1965 66.
That was a petition filed by the appellant under Art.
120 and 120A issued by the Board were invalidly passed and were of numberlegal effect b an order of certiorari to remove into the Supreme Court and quash the zoning orders and c an injunction restraining the Board from carrying out its intention of promulgating the zoning orders or from proceeding further or exercising any jurisdiction in accordance with the same.
Sobhugmal Jain and Krishna Sen, for respondent Nos.
On August 29, the respondent companypany wrote to the Board protecting against its proposal and asking for recession of the Boards resolution and ,for an opportunity of being heard.
On February 3, 1964, there was a meeting of the Cane Commissioners of Bihar and U.P. with the object of deciding on a long term basis the question of allotting sugarcane grown in the border area among the sugar factories situated near the Bihar U.P. border.
1953 New Zealand Law Reports p. 366.
6 to 8.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal by certificate arises from the decision rendered on 18th March 1968 by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
816 of 1967.
30 of 1937 as that in which the two companypanies companyld jointly companylect cream produced in supplying dairies situated in that area, and to prohibit the res pondent dairy companypany after October 1, 1950 from companylecting or receiving any cream so produced for the purposes of manufacture into cream or butter.
The petition was heard by a select Committee of the House of Representatives, which decided to make numberrecommendation on the petition.
14 of the Constitution.
For the New Siwan mill 5th respondent 100 more villages were reserved in Guthani area.
By its order of November 4, 1966, the State Government of Bihar rejected the representation made by New Siwan mill by its application of February 17, 1966 asking for reservation of the 208 villages mentioned earlier.
Apprehending that the appellants interest may be jeopardised, one of the Directors of the appellant companypany wrote to the Chief Minister on June 15, 1967 praying that the reservation made in favour of the appellant should number be disturbed.
On August 4, the Board made an amended Zoning Order No.
