They requested in the letter to issue the licence required under Rule 26 of the Bombay Denataured Spirit Rules, 1959 for short, the Rules.
The annual alcohol quota of 14.40 lakh bulk litres be released to the 1st petitioner, on companypliance of the statutory provisions, within two weeks.
It was asserted by the respondent Company in the writ petition that ultimately the Minister had recommended the grant of licence and also allocation of the required quota of 14.40 lakh bluk litres of rectified spirit for manufacture of the aforesaid two products.
On April 4, 1991, a reply was given by the Home Department to the respondent Company thus Now the said unit is going to manufacture two products, i.e., Deithyl Oxalate and Diethyl Phthalate instead of Ethyl Acetate and for that purpose, the alcohol quota of 14.4.0 lac bulk litres which is sanctioned for manufacture of Ethyl Acetate will remain valid and the Government grants permission to companytinue this assurance itself.
Deithyl Phthalage and Diethyl Oxalate.
Since licence was number being granted, the respondent Company approached the High Court which gave the above stated directions.
The prayer in clause a read thus This Honble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to forthwith issue to the 1st petitioner the requisite D.S.V. licence under Rule 26 of the Bombay Denatured Spirit Rules, 1959 as also to forthwith release 14.40 lakh bulk litres of alcohol specially denatured spirit annually to the 2nd petitioner.
In order to appreciate whether or number the relief granted would be justified, it is necessary to numberice a few relevant facts.
It was also stated that after taking review of the progress made by the respondent Company the office was recommending to accord sanction to the respondent Company to utilise assured annual quota of 14.40 lakh bulk litres of alcohol for producing two products, viz.,
M s. Pooja Brew chem Industries Ltd., Bombay hereinafter referred to as the appellant had applied to the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise for grant of a permit to manufacture Ethyl Acetate falling under products companyered in Schedule I issued by the Government of India.
Thereafter, the companypany had written a letter on April 1, 1992 to the Commissioner intimating that they had companypleted their project to manufacture the products in the factory located at the stated place and that they were ready to start the production.
Leave granted.
Referring to the said application, the office of Director of Industries in its letter dated July 31, 1990 addressed to the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, stated that for that purpose a licence from the Central Government was companypulsory and it was difficult to obtain it unless it companyplied with certain requirements enumerated in the enclosed letter.
