The legality of the judgment has been assailed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in this appeal.
A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment, which has been impugned in this appeal, held that the aforesaid Orders companyld number have been issued and it was further held that the respondent was number required to obtain licence for the transfer of the surplus or rejected companyl or companyl dust.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5330 OF 1995 Arising out of SLP C No.12786 of 1987 State of Uttar Pradesh Appellant Anr.
Sometimes quality of companyl supplied is number of the kind required by the respondent.
There is numberdispute on facts.
First, the respondent cannot be said to be dealer as defined in clause 2 d of the Control Order secondly, the case of the respondent is squarely companyered by clause 3 B of the Control Order.
The High Court has answered this question in negative for two reasons.
The same are that the respondent companysumes companyl for running its factory.
THE 5TH DAY OF MAY, 1995 Present Honble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh Honble Mr.Justice B.L.Hansaria Mr.R.C.Verma, Adv.
is necessary.
The respondent challenged the validity of these two Government Orders by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court.
The High Court did number accept the companytention of the State that because of what has been provided in clause 3 A the respondent is required to obtain licence in question.
The rejected companyl and the companyl dust being of numberuse to respondents it disposes of the same without obtaining any licence under the Control Order.
Coal dust is also produced when companyl is broken into pieces of required sizes.
Versus M S. Gulshan Sugar Chemicals Ltd. Respondents J U D G M E N T HANSARIA.
On the aforesaid facts the question for determination is whether licence as mentioned in the aforesaid G.Os.
Further, a huge quantity of companyl dust is companylected during the storage, loading and unloading of companyl.
The same is therefore, rejected.
For undertaking the manufacturing work, it has to companysume companyl, which is an essential companymodity and attracts the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Coal Control Order, 1977 the Control Order , which has been issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
J. The respondent, M s. Gulshan Sugar Chemicals Limited, is a companypany carrying on the business of manufacturing of chemicals.
for the Appellant.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh vide its Memo dated 6.6.1985 required the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, to see if any industrial unit was selling unused companyl or companyl dust improperly and if so, to take action, inter alia, under clause 15 of the Control Order.
By Memo of 19.9.1985 all District Magistrates of the State were required to take action against the industrial units if they sell or transfer unused companyl companyl dust without obtaining licence under the provisions of the Control Order.
