The Bidar Sahakara Sakkare vs The Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Bidar Sahakara Sakkare vs The Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2017

Bench: Rathnakala

                           1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017

                        BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA


      WRIT PETITION NO.101533/2013(GM-RES)


BETWEEN

THE BIDAR SAHAKARA SAKKARE
KARKHANE LTD.,
HALLIKHED (SF) 585415
HUMNABAD TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT, FACTORY CODE NO.27401,
REPRESENTED BY ITS I/C MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. A GOPAL.
                                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI H. N. SHASHIDHARA KESVY, ADV.)


AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA
   REGISTER OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
   DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION,
   KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001
   REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.

2. THE CHIEF DIRECTOR (SUGAR)
   DIRECTORATE OF SUGAR
   MINISTRY OF FOOD AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
   DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND PUBLIC
                                2




  DISTRIBUTION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
  KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. J. K. BUKKA, ADV)

     THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION OF
THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.9-120(4)/2004-SPF
DATED     09.04.2013    VIDE   ANNEXURE-A   TO    THE   WRIT
PETITION, ETC.


     THIS    PETITION     COMING   ON    FOR     PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

The petitioner/Bidar Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. is aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the Government thereby refusing the export subsidy, which is extended to a similar industry located in the same district i.e., Mahatma Gandhi Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd,.

2. The reason assigned for such rejection is, the export of the sugar was made under 'advance license' and the 3 advance license is not admissible for grant of subsidy under SDF Rule-20. But, it is shown that vide notification Annexure- C dated : 23.03.2014 the petitioner who is from Bidar and another sugar factory from Bhalki are permitted to dispatch the specified quantity of sugar out of their production of the year 2003-04 for the purpose of export to M/s Bannari Amman Suger Ltd., Coimbatore.

3. Vide Annexure-Q subsidy is granted to M/s Mahatma Gandhi Sahakara Sakkare Kharkhane Ltd, Bhalki in respect of dispatch of sugar under the notification at Annexure-C. If that is so, it does not appeal to reason why the petitioner who was also permitted under the same notification be declining subsidy. Definitely, it is a arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents and also violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Hence, this petition is allowed. The communication at Annexure-A is quashed.

The respondents are directed to extend the benefit under Annexure - C to the petitioner also if they are not otherwise ineligible, within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE SGS/JSM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court