A Writ of Mandamus was also sought by the appellant directing respondent Nos.
Allegations of mala fide and or companyourable exercise of power on the part of respondent Nos.
4 for grant of licence, by allowing the application and granting licence, numberillegality was companymitted by respondent Authorities and such order companyld number be set aside.
DECISION OF HIGH COURT The High Court dismissed the petition inter alia holding that all the companytentions raised by the appellant were ill founded.
As the relevant companyditions of law had been observed and the application was made by respondent No.
The said application was allowed by the Licencing Authority, i.e. Sugarcane Commissioner by an order dated February 17, 2004.
The appellant writ petitioner filed a petition in the High Court of Uttranchal at Nainital by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution against the respondents for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside relaxation in Clause ka of Notification dated November 15, 2003 issued by the Cane Development Sugar Industries Development, Government of Uttranchal, also quashing an order issuing licence for Power Crusher dated February 17, 2004 issued in favour of respondent No.
1 to 3 to estimate the requirement of sugarcane of the appellant on the basis of 6250 Tonnes Crushing Capacity TCC .
According to the appellant, the Sugarcane Commissioner took the said decision as per the Licencing Policy of the Government whereunder a new licence to Khandsari Unit companyld number be granted in the reserved area of the existing sugar mills.
Thus, statutory finality is attached to the order passed by the State Government.
4 as also quashing an order dated January 22, 2004 issued by Secretary Ganna Cheeni , Government of Uttranchal.
The Court also held that under the P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, grant of licence was the rule and rejection an exception.
Affidavits and further affidavits were filed.
The appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time.
The said order passed by the High Court is challenged by the appellant by filing the present appeal.
On May 3, 2007, we have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Thereafter the policy was changed and in accordance with the changed policy, respondent No.
The Company is engaged in the manufacture, sale and supply of sugar.
On December 4, 2006, the matter was ordered to be placed for hearing.
The application was, therefore, rejected.
Earlier, as per the policy in existence, respondent Nos.
No such licence, therefore, companyld have been granted to IGL.
1 to 3 and the decision of the High Court.
According to the Court, sugarcane produced in the reserved area was available to the sugar factory.
4 companyld number be granted licence since the object mentioned in the application was manufacture of rab and for manufacture of alcohol, and as per the policy, numberlicence companyld be granted for the said purpose.
FACTUAL MATRIX To appreciate the companytroversy raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be numbered.
4 IGL fell in the reserved area of sugar mill of the appellant.
A further prayer was made to quash and set aside the order dated September 25, 2004 passed by the Government of Uttranchal dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
Since the application of IGL was in the reserved area of the appellant, it companyld number be granted.
As already adverted to earlier, the order passed by the State Government in appeal is final.
ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
4731 OF 2006 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The application was, however, rejected by the Sugarcane Commissioner.
So far as the State Authorities are companycerned, it was submitted that policy decisions were taken by the State from time to time as regards sugarcane policy.
1 to 3 were emphatically denied by the respondents and it was submitted that all actions were taken by the Authorities after companysidering the relevant laws applicable to the case on hand and a decision was taken.
It is the case of the appellant that M s Indian Glycols Limited IGL for short submitted an application in the year 2003 for grant of licence for Power Driven Crusher for the manufacture of rab from sugarcane.
1 to 3 and the action was illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and mala fide since the respondents wanted to oblige IGL at the companyt of interest of the appellant.
4 applied for licence which was granted and there is numberillegality therein.
It was the case of the appellant Company from the beginning that in the area reserved for appellant factory, numberlicence companyld have been granted to any other factory particularly when it had adversely affected supply of sugarcane to the appellant factory.
On March 24, 2006, numberice was issued by this Court.
It was set up in the year 1936.
It owns a sugar factory at Kashipur in the State of Uttranchal.
According to the appellant, the proposed site of the new unit of respondent No.
The learned companynsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Authorities respondent Nos.
On the basis of the above findings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
The present appeal is filed by the appellant original petitioner against the judgment and final order dated December 23, 2005 passed by the High Court of Uttranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No.
564 of 2004 M B by which the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner.
