Karnataka High Court
Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd vs The Union Of India on 3 November, 2010
Bench: N.Kumar, Subhash B Adi
IN THE HIG£i'. COURT OF KARNATAKA. cIRcUI1*'wBfE1_§CH
AT GULBARGA ._
IJATED THIS THE o2ND DAY OF NovE:1v1I%3E:RV2o.i0"% * '
PRE:sE:1\r*r
THE £iZON'BLE MI§.JUS*1*;(: E , ~. " A T
THE HON'BLE MR.JUASZ1.'i:(3E 'sunngsfi B,_.2xD1
WRIT PETI"lTQ'N N().1:1Q2--/V2.00? (GM--EC}
H :.€?;~'.V;7;' _
'w'R1T,A1J?EAI. NO." 74:5/2091
BETWEEN' . 1 A'
Shree Réauka Sugé1i§S 'Liiti«L,_;:
Having its Registered
At N_:1.BC-- } OE).».IjIé1'v3OCk' Road,
V. &_ CaV_:1'i.Qn1_1ie1V1t.
" Belgauifi=v59Q 001
' Rép1fes.¢n1eLi,.Ab5,r its Chairperson
SH_1t.\2"i.c1'y;_1 f\/.T_.v'N_IvVL"i.i'1{UI'1'1bi. ...Pe'Li":i011e':r and Appeilanlf
[COMMON IN BOTH CASES)
[By Sr"i.P1'abhuIing K. Navadgi.
Advocate]
%/
AND:
The Union of India
Represenieci by its
Secretary,
Ministry of Consumer Afl'21i1's';;
Food 81 Public Distribution, '
Krishi Bhavan, "
New De1hi--i 10 001..
The Chief Directo'i';.,V_
Director of Sugar;*--. _ _ V
Ministry of Consun1c:1'AAffai1'sV,
Food & Public: Dis.trib_u1,i01--1, ' "
Krishi Bhayan, _, .
New 1)He1_.h1--;;'iio Q01. '
Statfi Of 'Ka'?I1a:2.1<.a 'a °
RepiresEnt.ed¢i:by its
I.P1"incip'al._-Scgcvfetary . V _
Dep'a1'tmefn.::'0f iC.Qni.§ri'ercé
and :'nc1us:;§ae-s','-- ' '
Vikas_a€»0udha; "
. -- }3a11ga1o.re4560 0011.
. Cfomiilissioifiéifiifol' Cane
De*ze'1Qf)*n1 em. and
V' - D'i::ec:!.0:_O_[ Sugar.
' Gotzeiinixneni, of Karnataka,
NQ,.32=,, Chowgaie .I--iouse.
61'} F1001', Crescem Road,
" Ba1nga1o1'e~560 001 .
" iVi/s KPR Sugar Mills ma... Ltd.,
A No.5, AKS Nagar.
Th adagadaiii Road.
Coin'1batore--641 001, ..
Tamil Nadu. ...Resporidenis.p
(COMMON EN I3Ofi'H..:(jA$ES)Vb
(By Sri. Naganand. ScI1i>Qr>couI:,se1"and, '
Sri. S.S.1~ia11a11i, Adt,.?ocat.e«!or--«R-5,. V " _ V
Sri.ShivakL1mar Tengli, AGA f0f..R-3.&I1d"R--'4 A
Notice to R-- 1' and R.--_2"s_erved}' " . 2 V
W.P.N'o. 1102/2007 is Fi}€r:d"'s,i11der a.rt1'c.le;s; 2'26'a'nd 22701'
the Constitution of India, praying_Vto cjuash the impugned
governrrient order at di*.'2'3t 12.2006 issuvedby the R3, in
No.CI, 136. SGF O6. dii.f_e°c.t the 1jespo.ride'n.tus herein not to grant
any permission, accord' 'sai1c't_i_o'i1.vor'e_ar¢n»1arI<. any sugarcane
area to R5 in Airnel, Sindgi Taluk; B'ij~ap i.~'i_i" District, Karnataka,
declare that in_"View of c1ause;6A._oi"-theVV" sugarcane (control)
order, 1966, ;R.°3"c;is not e1i1t:iit;1ed'vijo=esi_a_biish a sugar factor in
Almei, Ta1}1}:*Sinda'gi',' 'District-._"Beijapiui'. pursuant to the IEM
granted toiit. :
;W.A.'i~ioV;.5',i?4V3'}t2oiQV7{is tiieciwti/s 4 of the Karnataka High
CO111'i¥ACt. p1'aying_t[o, setaside the order passed in the writ
petition' ~i\io';1, 102./2007' 28/03 /2007.
These"Wri'ti.i*'eti'tion: and Writ appeal are coming on for
1ie.aringt;~ this dagriitpifi. Kuniar J., made the following:
0 R D E R
. pflei.i'i:ioi1er has prei'eri'ed this writ petition.
ct1ia--]lenging""'t.he order passed by the State Government as per
h iAri_nex't1're--D dated 23.12.2006 gianting 'in principle clearance'
K //1
,,
to the fifth respondent. to set up a sugar Iattiory at /9g1*;i1:'€':E»_V\'%"i1VA1a1zg{e
and for a further direction to the State sanction or earmark any sugar _c.an_e' area' " 2:. 1 deciaration that the respondent No1.5 isrxraoit e'11tii::1e::i it sugar faciory in Alrnel villageio
2. An interim order to boyiassedziin the Writ. petition against which,"writ_'appAea.l. came to beflfiied and an interim order again was passedi in .v=Jri't.>.:ap'}j1eal. However, on 21.1.2008, O{1'i:.3'i:,¢Er€q'ti€Sg*t for the parties. the writ pVet;iiio'n" to the Division Bench for being disposedVo'i'Malon_.g appeal. That is how the writ petition is Before us. i .3,' "i'he"'pe.tii.t:ioner is a Company incorporated under ' pi~o__Visions of the Conipanies Act, 1956. It is involved in the 'brtisiness-'of iT1€1i1lifE1CK.11r€ of sugar and its by~prociucts. It is one ofxthev premier sugar industries in the country and is the nseeondfllargest. sugar producer of the country. The pet.it.ioner -- \_/' /,..
%u / inclu.sti*y has been ackriowleclgecl wiih 3.11 _4vV~.V1Vi14r_ji_uisut1'i21l Ent:repre1'1eL1r l\/lemorancium (for short will mm') on 23.11.2005 by the _s¢¢;-etaiiar~..,:::n'dVusi'i~ia¥, Assistance, Governmem of II1CliLc'1 , Bijapur district, Kai*nai:aka7 manuI'a(:i:ure of while crystal git capacity of 95,000 metric tonne. IBM filed by the petitioner.
4. In» 'eQn'e0i1i.inee« of the Central Goverruneni _elelice.riSi1{1g' Qfsiigar factories, the Government of Karnai,aka fb1*i_I1'uIafe'cl--.__:i"'pblicy for granting of permission for setting up :51' r_1ewe'ug§'°ir l"iiet.ories in the State 0fKa1'nataka vide
5./date--d_ Under the said policy, no two sugar permitted 10 be set, up within a radius of 15 l{i1_eineler$5 each other. It is further stipulated tjhai. in case of merefihari one applicatioii within the prohibited distance, Eéreferenee shall be accorded to the applicant. who has V'(g)bl.E1I'I1€d Letter of indent. over lhe applicant, who has obtained E/' the HEM. However, in the event of neither party'--.__having obtained a Letter of indent, preference shall applicant, who has obtained the IBM at Annexure«A is the Copy of the the policy. Respondent No.5 also lias setting up of sugar factoiy at Village :'iil:te"pe't;itionei'l also obtained IEM. The lEMA_fi.le:d:_b*y.._Vtl1e.lfifthiprevspondent is acknowledged on L. the same is also produced as Annexure--C"'i,o the Writ, _peti_tioi1.v." filed an application before the State Govetnrnent,ton0htai_niii§ permission for setting up of the sugar ~faotor3u/ at 'Aln1'e£.."' The grievance of the petitioner is that, Governnient without i'nviting objections from the .pt'3h}icr»-isst£mg_:..notiee to the petitioner whose IEM is already acékijiowledgetjlllpassed an order on 23.12.2006 giving 'in *.:principle elearancre' for establishment, of factory subject to the '.oondi't_ion mentionecl in the Crovernment. Order dated lt§?.3.2005. ln puistianee of the said order, the Governinent:
it/' wouid ailot. sugar cane area to respondent No.5_.'u_1"1'c1eir.V the Stxgarcane Control Order. AJ1nexure--I) is the said Order. I h
6. The petitioner in ihe:'Jme'anWh.i}e.;«h§is._r1Vegotia'ted T with the land owners for purchase"«oftgthdsdét;td*has"
appiication before the Industdedibeveloiaa1e11-ta V3;1fi1{'6'1:"':fidia for financiai assistance for ;S§1'tiI1g.'t1'}dV:.-Q18' have also made an extensive reseerreah' of factory. They have placed be delivered at any point o.:f.'1tit::_:e,_ VA3It.VVis..4Vi:'1"'1«.t_I'r.i_s _'0ackg1'ound, it came as a huge shock peti!:i_onj.e1-' t',h-iatkeeping it in dark, the respondents, in Violatiofr. or .prinC.--i:p1eS of natural justice and reievant sta_iL-itorjf rules"*ar1_d__'regulafgions have accorded a parallel Ape&r1'11isS§;o11_f'o._respondent No.5. The pet.itior1er should have r_be_er1V "j3re_<:§e{ie1'1<:e2 over responderlt No.5. '1'herei"o1'e. they have't'preierired' this writ" petifzion, challenging the Governmerzt O'rder and Seeki11g reiiefs, as set. out in the prayer comma. 3;.
%/d
7. After service of notice. the respon_derit«s:t"have entered appearance and they have filed a. objections. Fifth respondent eonteifids submitted their IBM to the Ceiltiyal i been duly acknowiedged otr'1'..__\V;t4_f2".2,_(')'t(}F3V. Government of Karnataka the the Cane Deveiopment Conimiseioiner to the fifth 1'eSP0nd€T1[ Y0 with 2500 TC capacity at hasiftotremmertt Order dated
23. 12.20062?' to the fifth respondent is in of the Cabinet and the Depa1'tnien't of industries. Government of Karndtgaka. 'V ._Pe'i;itione1* valso has made an appiication for pe'rn{is3s'i:o11'.to estiéthiish a sugar factory git Afzalpur and the %te<:o1'ded permission to the petitioner for estgth1isl3it'ig--.V.titV.sugar factory at Afzalpur on the same day by 11116:
said Cahiinet decision. Thereafter, the 5*" respondent submit.ted an fignpliczltion dated 12.1.2007 to the Karnat.2kka Udyog Mitra, Government of Karnataka Orgallization. which is the nodal agency um:ie1* Section 1.2 of the ACL which _4v:.11'1{:14e;:t.a}(es ir1VestI11eI1t promotional activfiies and rend%;1"S"' gL1idance and assistance 1.0 entrepreneu1"S.,*----if{i:a.f»£11e :1__Oci'aE agency can secure the c1eara.nc.e i._Vl"ro1t11~e \§{S1?VCC';- "1"f"1e1'ea£'i.e1: ' the 5"' resporidem has pl'OC€.€d€i_d to 'flip f21_;§1:teoi'y taking the following steps:
"a}. The 5"' 'fe§p0r1der1§.£.A71g11.=e"«.er1fered H inio agreements to pLLrcf£.d.Sed'V'rr{c=fe acres Qf land fromf'::.:md ;>'Lpfi'er?;s, :f'l,£El'§1}fiOtLn[ qr the C0nsideraieréE:)'f1._. Lo and} td1fei'i '"p0ssessi0n of the .e.f'-the Sgtdige government for ldfiddieo IeF1feVV5"'* responderlfs name the single window clearance vSCH€3:ITl€:-"Cf}7,' éihe Kama.ra.ka Govemmemf; . and iu£ui3.,VpendinQ censideraiion.
i:9'), _ The 5"' Respondent have Commenced civil V' ' _1:i&Q_.«rAk5:x the Almel. side in ani.'i(:ipa.r,ion. Qf appfeayrils. Sojiar about R34 Crores have been paid' 'as advance to civil contractors, and cement ;-aujapliers.10
C). The 5"? Respondent have placed firm orCi.er3.":;_ with machinery suppliers and paid advccnceu '7' Rs.12.73 Crores io the machinery supp.l_iers'r--as._ follows.
It has placed firm ordersfor machinery mil-h . l
(i) Thyssen Krupp Ind'tisi'1'!'es Punefor supply lsiigar n.'iill"/ re
(ii) Isgec Jhon} UP for supply Q,*7'B_o'iler,
(iii) Private Limited ;PLLnel'_f'hOi'v_VSLL};lply _oj7,sugar Processing equipments and '.
V. (in) lllllsieznens AI,/abiodra for supply of 24 MW Sleam Turbin__e'_«GeneraL'or. All these are reputed sliipplizers Qf sugar and cogeneraiion plant ' i.iiaclii:1eifg~.
C1' J; l 2 "Tile 5"' Respondent. have placed llapplicaijions with Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Banic, United Bank of India. and 11 Corporation Bankfor sanction of term loan for the, project.
e). The 5"" Respondent have obt.a.tt'ied 4A:'Il'r.t::''' :"
principle permission from Karnataka as required under the IEM Aeftnoitiledgrentertta.' a V J). The 5*" Respond_ertt h.;:m,{ Sosham Consultants, as' 'their project consultants {ii} .€3;S&Luantienat.han\"=3; Co "their civil, structural and la-rch_.ivtVec::1tral:cortsttltants (iii) M.Kasilin_aam 8:, Co"asftheirfinan_cial,adt>tsor and loan anrarigers andiRarn"'&l Rartyiadoocates as their 'legal advtsorsi gtjr * have obtained IEM aclcno1,oledge_ntenet"; establishment. of 28 MW co-
. ugenerat'ton_plant':at the Almel Site. 5"" Respondent have engaged per::.or1rrte'iL/or various departments such as cane depazitrnent and have done extensive research on ~~ cane. development. in the Almel area.
j) The total amount invested in the project, so far by T he 5*" Respondent is over £85.20 Crores. "
E/' 12
8. This being the position, st113;)ressing:§ facts. including his own obt.a1i11i11g-'oi' 'i-It j for its proposed Afirzalpur faCtoryh'.t1ri.dlei; decision. petitioner has filedlt-h:ls..V_vexat.iotzs writ petition. Petitioner no'At..z9},{:ts "'s..tActI1c.I'i'"to._ehiallenge the permission granted. 'not; applied to the Karnataka GoVei"n_n1ent" zteeessaiy approval/in principle reservation of cane area, ete.__._.v Q "i~n:::'1'l"1::'€.; application. he cannot be heard {tot -State Government Violating its formulated'policynnd--er'whie'h. no doubt. when two applications are made for theisan1e'.area, preference is to be given based on earil__ie1' itE1'v'Lt_acknow'}--e£igenient. in the absence of an application tl1e~v._Vpet.it~io'ner under the policy guidelines for setting any st;'g-ar fad.-."my',a't Almel or for allocation of sugarcane area for t,l1e4"said proposed factory. he cannot seek to make any such. it grievances. Therefore. he should not be allowed to invoke the %i'/..
13 extraordinary jL1risdiet.io11 of this Court. There. is reqttirement for the Government. i.o call for public. It. is relevant. t:o notice that. the hot sought its approval for the Aime} l' Government while he appliecl l'orali'ci Karnataka Government. 'in perniissiloinl': f'olr:§its Afzalpur location (IBM aeknol'\£:(edgen'ierit.l.A News report. appearecl in :¢%L11sfl~.:lvllA1>:§.hé.1,1Qll0~VlSL1al media about the C;o=\}eriiArrilefii'.sIfproposal to accord permissiori for-"staitingloll"vrleiafllstigar' factories at Almel by 5"' respoiidem. tilie petitioner. The petitioner has been grar1t.ecl two other locations and two other locations by.tw=o pot.-her,er1t:repreneurs. The extracts of the paper publ--ieaifion iri "*'Sa1ny.uktha Karnataka' and 'Prajavanf are .j'l'he petitioner had suflieient time to Submit to the Govei'mVi're.rit f(3.§.Kai'r1ataka their objection to the 'in principle 2 V' t§'1ie..responde11i's factory site 211 Almel was E1(',C()I"d(:'.d 'in priiiciple approvaI'.laeeto1*(led to the i"i'['ih respor1deni.. The petitioner's own fz,Let~:)ry at Alzalpur, which is at a disf:an(:e of 25 kms from 3 %v/...
14 permission' by the order dated 26.12.2006 and the this grant of permission was published along side name in the same newspaper. Having"'1"'ul.1:yr.known the procedure to obtain in-«prirmiple ' taken steps to obtain the ap.:pV1'-oval fot:'_ft.'he A!t1i*i'é".i.; petitioner, who has now chosen' before this Court, is a clear preernpt the fifth respondent's rightful Cane' therefore, the petition lacks" bf» have sought for dismissal : if __ Stdte C~.oi?er__I;m'ent also has filed its objections. They hdifxefretferred to :Governnient' policy dated 16.3.2005 and ;Con_i.endVs,-.tinder this policy. the sugar' factories which has Iiiditistrtal fE.i1trcprCn'et,t1" Meniorandum {IBM} has to submit the p1<.opos.;i1's, 2t"{)VA"'._l'.:f.i('3 Government. with necessary details for rese_.1*vatienf'<jof cane area. it l'orn1uEated policy for pe1'mit:t.ing of E'.-St€ibf1SVh':T]1€I1i of new sugar niiii under which priority was given _ i;o_t.h@: suga1* factory. who are senior and have received Letter of \t' M \/ l5 indent over those who have IBM. Fu1'the1', if llI1C'lf'C",':8';iTCV'~{1'1Ol'C than one applicani, priority will be accorded t.o _lfI'a§d_.e1'1t holders over those who have IEM. in the 65?, Letter 'of, lndent. the IBM holder will be gitzeri ll seniority among the applicant-s__..
obtained IEM on 23.11.2005 _tihelllCeniral fiCfgoVeri1me11t.. Mere filing of l'El\/I and :e:,1§l_{i'iOWledge1iiVe1it does not Confer any right on the {avg-$11' it is issued. '.FI'1e:" necessary Distance Certificate 'i:';iB[l] of the said Control O1*de1*till tlcdajliv.-".VTlfV1"ecCoffirnissierier for Cane Developrnerit and Directorllof 'Sugar, of Karnataka addressed to the Chief' 'Diiect.o1-.A(dSu'g3;arl', slew Delhi. a letter dated 13.3.2007 lV"e:1closifi'g distance certificate in respect of 5*" respondent. st;ati1i'g...tnat., such a distance cei-t:il"icate has not been issued for a1A1)',T"'0l,l1C1':nS..ll:<'Z'. within the 15 lmis radial distance of Almel Village,.VV'_AE3i11dgi tzaluk, Bijapur district. Copy of the letter is _an_i1e;:ed as AnnexuremR2. "I'heret'o1-e. as on the date of 20.12.2006. no other application for Alinel village was pending t/ 16 before the Go\:em11'1e11t. of Kalnataka. VVithoL11 a iication, it cannot be )resumed that thereié; a11o'€;v1tie:':'i'EM, pp I V ._ 4_ for the same site. The Co111111issi_oner_forjCa_r1e=.DeVelopr1'1er1i'do x and Director of Sugar by his Iette1';"date_d .
that the petitioner has not allocation under the prc)visiQg4_L§':A..,,:3\1._fJ1°§ {Control} Order 1966 at AlmeI"'~.xr'"1lla§e. is produced at Anne.xure--R5. The pe:1,i't}:o..n:er not taken any effective dause 6C afifir the issuaneem applied to the State Gove1'i£1xrne_n.Af':A or in principle Clearance. Hence, ""ariy"'.grievance about the same. The peti!E:1o'ner w€§s--.1f1o1;"'at "211 wpreciuded from t;aking effective steps " u;rrde1' C~o_urt The Company made an application to A 11:53 Cdoni1131i'ssien'.e1' for Came Development) and Director of Sugar, 7.1.2006 for the a11()1.mem of 623 villages of AI'z.aI1'5L1.r§' Gulbarga, Sindagi and Indi taiuks for its proposed at I-Eavaiaga village in Afzalpur {aluk of Gulbarga dd V ciistrict. I1) is marked A1'1nexL1re~RE3. I---Iowever, the petflitioxler 1 gm//.
17 did noi make any application for allocation of for setting of an industry at Almel village. During the proceedings._ pursuant. to the direction» ..bylTthepl°--.. Division Bench of this Court, co1:;m_:ss1ofi'é'i~_VV.f;§i§ca«ne ll. Development and Director of and the fifth respondent snbm.ltted A{re.port.l3 27.2.2008 stating that, petitiovn'e.rlpl'i3as any effective steps as contemplated mine ._[Contro'i} flxniendment] Order 2006. The petitioner- not even purchased adequate land at Aln1el,...vtllage'for s'e'tufigi,_up a sugar factory. Pet.itir}ner_ »l(}o_n1pany'haapurchased only 2 acres of land in Aime] villageppand.S2l.'acre.5l'2Olguntas of land at Gundagi village, which is a stéparate revenue village and it is at a distance of abetlt ;~,_7 Knismllrom Aime] village. Furiherniore, the '-ilfiaolmpany has not obtained any IEM for Gtmdagi petition 1 village. l'i"rj.elrel'o1'e. {hey sought. for dismissal of the writ is/c WI' 1.8
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contended, when once admittedly 'tiled by the petitioner is earlier in point of time, btith Goveriirneiit. policy as well as under...t.h_e aInended_':St'igar. Cane . 1 Order. the petitioner was entitled to p_'i'et'ereince.:"' Dufingiiihe period prescribed for eflelctixte Government could not have eye'n_c=onside'1'ed the} request of persons, who have filed much less granted 'in principle clearance' for vs_e't=tii'1--g; up an iifiuhstry and allocated cane area. 4Mo1*e::}V'er the §;_etitio_ner "was"'not. notified, petitioner has not n_1a_iter and the impugned order is passed 'behind in violation of principles of natural justice and'there.fo--1'e,°.it.«requires to be set aside. When once V' the-. C'et.i"t.ione1* l1as"fii'ed IBM for settin u a sufar industr in p P _ g P E: Y Eldlnieai a new industry and within 15 kms from the said new iiidustry. the GoVer11n1e11t' could not have granted in piinciple. sanction to any other person much to the 5'"
ifespondent to set up an industry. It is in contravention of the amended provisions of the Sugarcane Order. The petitioner ll/i E9 has taken effective ste s in Jurehasind the re L1.isite--, land, 1 £15 ,V _ placed orders for suppiy of machinery and also arr"an'ge'd_.ioan for setting up the industry. Insofar as Civil wo1'_k7--is eo'n:ee1'pi'iepd;.p because of the pendeney of the writ petition or-ders . passed. it could not be pursued. Howeyerj; the':{1LiestiVov1fi'E3,§3f£i?e ' the Court is, whether on the datedlthee impugned passed, whether the petitione1'.o&ght to"ha\~'e_ and if V he has not been heard, _Whether...that: order eouldpbeiisustained? In that View of the he is1Vi.l:5r1i'its'«.jt1f1at. seen from any angle, the impugned order is i'v}iat$ie_...to~ Stet aside and the petitioner_is1 t0,:'e.the_r_'reliefs sought for in the writ petition." 4' '.11. "Perv eoij;t1'a, {earned Senior Counsel appearing for =.._th€':_.:5{h2/,'F€SpQ.1'1d€ifiiVVE5'I;ZIb1'I1ii{E§d that it is an admitted fact that. _ the 'peifit.i_o'ne'r'.sV HEM is earlier in point of time, but after filing of I.EF\p/ifihe taken any ef£'eetive steps in iniplementing the projec;.t.V"'Admittedly. he has not filed an application before the (3o&fe.i'nrnent in terms of the policy document. seeking for a "W 20 distance certificate as well as allotn'ie1'it of cane area i"or"sei.iing, up the industry and that he did not file an ai})pl*i(::atio'n', l.Tw_he11 he filed an application for setting up a1_1V__ir_"id'iist_l.ry ' in the adjoining area i.e.. Afzalpur. which; is a_bot;tV'_25'1 from "
Almel village. he cannot. be he;:-1rd tolsatégthat iiotlriea'rd before passing the impugned oIjd'er. rlnaiflserilal on record discloses, the 'in principie perrniiss.ionV"'granted"on"the basis of the cabinet decision. in wh-ichperniissionf granted both to the petitioner and fifth-respondent'«as'vlWeli. as to other factories to start the l'q:U.€,S'L'i0I1 of considering the seniority or Alpreferencesvplcoiild _'arise only when there are two appli.catio_ns._ Whenthe---pei;itioner's application was not before the ;State Goveifnirientvarid the only application was that of the t'iftii.respor;dent andllwhen the petitioner had not taken any lei'ieci.iV.e'»._&stepsQin pursuance of EEM filed, the Government:
coi7nn'iit:t.edl"j'..--no illegality either in not issuing notice to the petitioiier. not hearing him or granting the in principle " 'p_erriiissioi1 to set up an industry at Almel village. "l"'he1"efore, he subrnit.t.ed that. even on the date the mat.t.er is being heard. he ti/ 21 has not taken el'fect.Ive steps. the land is acquired a.I"t"€'],'V'V1-.}<1_:l>_'I/J:~Q£_§v of the writ petition. Admittedly, no civil commenced, the machinery for whichmhe = not meant for setting up an indL1str3}=._at loan documents produced do not__.indic'at.le"that was obtained to set up an 'afr._xAlInel. lxiiillagelllfimoreover, he has not purchased'aCieqL1ztt.ell:.l?);'it(;i.l,in--..Almelllvilage at all. Even after five years, if taken. merely because he ;l*iadj:.jVL:V1'bee:n g by virtue of acknowledgerne1.ii;Volfl.'point of time, he cannot block the setti.rlgvVgp:',ar1,indt1StI_3«' by other genuine factories. who not _filed_ l_l5:1_:t"also approached the Government, obtained in pli3i,-nciplie" sanction and also taken effective steps in l"i--mplernenotieng._the projlelct. Therefore, he submits that, seen 't'rol1if:. on merits there is absolutely no case. Elven ot:h'e._z_f\i\lrisev. 'conduct, of the petitioner Front the day he filed this I}3M_tii.l today is not bonafide and it clisentitles him from extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the l Coiistitution of India.
425* 22
12. in the light of the aforesaid facts HEH1l"42~VfZV:iV"'t.tE1'f:.V"'1Ti\?21§ eontehtioris. the point that arises for our eonsici.erat'te.ri'sis: _ 1 V' (1') Whether the petotttoz'1er';I5tds ":n;_:1t--te _grou*nd"'_.fori'. V setting aside the ivrrtpitgmzd .'arder,: ng.r'ar1t'E~rtg inprineiple pern1issvf.or:..tt'o tI1.efifi'.hAjresgfiortdeht to set up a sugar tndtistry --ri_r'idVV7-whether'such permission granted cont?'oiJe!tesf'It.'f:te Control Order?
13. Against th.et--.,ir1.ter.'tm_ torderiiiassed in these pI'OC€E?'_:(:1i1'1gS';AV the__rri.at;t*er"'~«h_ad reached the Apex Court. The matter hugs' rerriahded the Court with 21 direction to consider the case on "rr1erit:s and dispose of the matter at the ea'"r§--iest--."it After stiethwrenaand. a Division Bench of this Court after matters instead of deciding the matter on merits 112111:-u'it"1ect the mzttter to the Chief Director of Sugars.
The s"a,id'i~ order was challenged before the Apex Court. Tide Court set aside the said order and directed that the i1§1at,t.er has to be disposed of on merits by this Bench. That, is iv"
23
how t.he matter is before us for decision on merits from the material available on record.
14. From the material on reeord petitioner submitted its proposal for of» Factory with a capacity of 96.009.
Gulbarga District, on the fifth respondent submitted for setting up a sugar factory at same has been duly acknowledgeiijoby the Central :Go.i/erriiénentt. It is eaiied as Industrial fi3nt;re'preneur'«Megnorandurxi. It is also on record that the petitioner._ gone more IEM for setting up a sugarA.£'b.etory"at.,vA}2a1ptir about 25 kms from Almel. After the °dAe7regLilatio1its.¢ no lieence is required from the Contra} 2'C}oi'Ve.r'ni:1.é'i1_t fora-esfitabiishirig the sugar factory. However, as no stlgaijiidiaCt,oryE_--ooL11d be estabiished within 15 kms from the *.3xisti11g" stiigar factory or proposed sugar factory the distance "eertifioate is required to be obtained. Thereafter. it is necessary K obtain an aiiottnieni, 01" Cane area from the State Gove1'nrnent., 1 /- "
3 /« 24 which are coiiclition precedent. be.i.'o1'e any et"fect,ive vSut1'e:t'é3..COL1ld be taken to Set up a sugar plant.' The State Government has t'0rn1ulat'ed a policy in this the policy. after getting entrepreneui' has to approach the an application to seek the as the allotment. of cane area-".' ftillyawvare of these requirements. Pe'titioner#r;_iid to the State Government at; Afzalpur.
Adrnittedlyg, was filed in respect. oi' the sagar .t'éte't:--ory:V'3V.io eat. Alrnel. However, the fifth 1'esponclentfsubniitled'a'i'1_::'ap1i5licat,ioI1 immediately on 6.5.2006. TheA.C:overI1"1:1_ent~alter TCOI1SiCl€1'iI1g the said application in co"nsaul5!;at;ioln wit.hWthe Central Government authoritiies after before the Cabinet: granted the inprinciple pA(t,I;']:VI'1iSbv']'O'].:1'.:l.U:.Slt:t1"l the sugar factory to the fifth respo1'1de1'1t, by the o";'de:.:* dated 23.12.2006. In the same cabinet meeting i.np'1'i_1.1cip1.e c1.ea1'a11ce is also _g"1'aI1t.ed to the petitioner to set, up sugai' factory at Afzalptii'. As; no application had been l'ile(;¥ by R'/..
25 the petitioner in respect of the factoiy to be set up case of the petitioner was not consideied. 4' aforesaid inprinciple clearance _the._ 3..V:§ioV£?i'i}IT1f.jIii.' _ ' b1*oug}1t', an amendment to the Sttga'rca1i_e which is known as Sugarcane"
2006. which Came into force that was passed on 10.11.2O06,"«_..q:ThOi:l'gi3.tb'i::I'iE3.Vh'$t5V't?§fI'lI}'l(31'1t policy also stipulated that ,2"? 33et/;:'?*)~nv:.,':5"3r1'a4" {getter of intent is preferred to iirho in the absence of a person having the persons who have got EEEVL the at prior point of time is to be prefei'r_e'<':i., The statutory recognition in the Sugarcane {Cont*'o1'} Order by way of amendment. It is in this " the petitioner filed the Writ Petition challenging the Gofveriiriient O.rd~ei' contending that as his IEM was earlier in point. oi'.~tir_rte:,A the State Governnient could not have issued the iI1pri.1.ici_§§ie clearance to the fifth respoI1dent'. Firstly. it is in _hviolE1fi'iO11 of the principles of natural just.i(:e; secondly. on the it u grotind that it is in contravention of the Sugarcane {Control} V 26 Order as amendeci. '.'{'he1*efore, the answer to the in this Writ Petition revolx-'es round the inie1'p1*ei.at.ioi--1 to plgiéhietiiig on the Government policy as well ~io._t_.he ziniefidéd p'rovis:ior1s'_ 2 of the Sugar Cane Control Order.
1
15. The provisions ot'Vi.1r_1.e Si:1g&il;§?&fl€'~'v{CQI]LifiOU_:.§ Oi*oe:1f; 2006 came up for consideration'fiefote the C;ou1't in the case of OJAS fNDUSTRLES_ ii') "O_UDH SUGAR MILLS LTD [(2007) 4 Soc 7231.. ;§fn:;ci;'5i~es' could be deduced from the afort%_sai{§iisjudginei1t"}a1*eas itrider':~ ll _ adopted the policy of econoniic 1;ej,fbfJllS'; trade and liberalisation in ' *1991.x Tlie"Governmeni:' has taken. several steps in, that dii*ec'i'ion. The Licence Raj has been in phases. Sugar industry is . liberalised. It has been clelicensed.
being to increase the prod.itci.i.on of ~~slii;gar. The object: being to make the sugar inditsirg competitive in the world. The olqiectz 'i being continuous supply of sugarcane to the €3I1iT€pf'€nC'1.£I'S proposing to set up new sugar * est. 27 plants of viable capacities.
disciplined procurement. of sugarcane ;.
siyfflcieriti supply Q1' sugarcane to rnlllsll The object' (factories). This last. object is "ifh'e.ba£§is Note 12 dated 31w8»l998. :Stlgiar'ti»mtl.ls"' allowed to be set: up in' close pro§ar11iiylV.r the demand of sugarcane Luillibe mihich. h'igIji'.._erll"t,har1 supply and in which §',1.1€l:"AL.I'fv.'l)'"l€,' mills will be siart)ed_ Qf' ilgellusiigareane and will become wwtable; will also sill]-'e;f_' _
27...; ll way i:he"._VSLigarca11e {Control} ,tA}}le'rii<i:fn_eni}7'§V 2oo'6""¢ialed 1o«11m2oo6 a ibarl' clauses 6~A to 6wE for S€ljl'iIlgliLLpV'C£ s.i):garjactory (mill) by a person ...talcirig'.' effeciive.7.<;i:'eps after filing IEEM. In other f;:U.(1)r|':l_S, f t.'lie----f€rst {IBM-holder or the earlier IPJMM .liolder_l'i*alces e1)"ect.1've steps to implement. its IEM lllt3vvS1.lbS€ql1€flli IEM--holder cannot'. proceed IEM. If the first or earlier ll£'M«»holcler ,.coi_nplei.es its project's success/'ally then the remai.ni.ng lEMs for that area shall become non They shall. however, remain in suspense diiring stipitlaiecl. period. when the earlier IEMW h«,/ 28 holder takes effect'ive steps for irnplernenting IEM.
Further it was held that.
31. Asfar as effective st:eps are conc_er'ned 411183 may point out that apart_]rorn:t'he_Vstepslentisted in the earlier notificat'io:r_i"d.at'edA"J with Press Note 12 3} tithe Sugarcane (Cori.trfol,t_ (A_ineiid--inent) Order." 2006 has laid down 'such of required land in :.t)./as the (mill).
placement A a firm=i order" 'purchase of plant and molt?-hi}'terg.; b j-'or payment" of .;ftdoan'ce5 or ilofzeniiig of. letter of credit with s"uppliers,_ coinrnenc"e_nie_nt' certificate of civil work an.d'--coIi1siructi'On qfbttilding, sanction of requisite ' term loans from 'banks orfinancial institutions (incl .__ang ot'he--r--«'s'tep prescribed by the Central " » _V Gooe'rnrnent in this regard. In our view clauses 6~ JR have been introduced in clause 6 of the Sttgarjearie (Control) Order, 1966. In our view ,.cla.uses 6A to 6~E are clarificai.'ory in. nature. There are certain. norms mentioned in the accounting standards of the Institute of Chartered AcCountant'sfor setting up industries. They may 29 be sugar mills, paper mills. t:exi.ile mills, etc, Wlierill effective sieps are enlisted in the Siiga.ri:ane"h:'~;.V (Control) {Amendment} Order, 2006 oia:.eci,4':_}--og1:i;3§"'-- 2006 vide Explanaiion 4 to clause in} built norms are made Jxplicizg, Explanation 4 to Clause 6:}\__ A. ClC1il;§f!".CC"LI.()TTi__;'.'V Therefore. it is retrospec-ii_ije.,..
34. We may reiterate',t'l'i'ai":rais-ing of 'I'€S.0lii:C€S and application oj'.resoii_rce{s iiriit is different from ihe conditionVof.aisV_iancej"~.V."Il§ie..concepi of "disiance"« isV:'diJffe}::rerjiiji;i'om: r;once;§i' of "setting up Qfi1fi'fi:" the ih.ai:fsic2ii'ing up of a umt: is 'nj'.Qf}h_'ih.e liiisinessinan whereas a concepts is an economic concept which" beihflrakeri into account by the "Governmertt'l:)ect1iise it' is the Government. which has tofrariieeconomic policies and which has to iiaVke:'4i_n'io.__account jciciors such as demand and ]___6; the light of the aforesaid pronou'ncemer1t o'f1',he Apex Coiirt it is Clear that, be}'.'o1*e 21 sugalr factory is set. up, the K/, 30 requirements of distance has to be met. Siniiiarij/Iin"Vi'ew of the G0vem.me11t policy. the Government has 1-§----e1i:Qé'ai'e~ Sugar cane area to an unit which is 21 e0_nd.i.te_i_Q11 pfecefieeiiit i'o.1_':'seti_ing . up a sugar Faetery. The effective st'epsft"0A~be of an {EM though been in vogue plfior 10' «title ,Aiii,en'd._ment:-';Act, by way of amendment it is now":VS-pecrifiealijf "!Ti€H[iC:3n€d in the Order. Therefore. nV0Wx:7itA vstiatziateiy recognition. The effective steps as,_defir1ed--i«I1_EXp}.a11at'i6n Zhfeeids as L1I'1d€I'2~ shall mean the f(€,=LtoL:::_;_ing by tfieieoncerried person _In_:dustn'al Entrepreneur 1VI¥:ni;0rar:da}*nj?)f up Qf Sugarfactoryn» [a] lzugiurelzasie .Qf'Ateq;tii'ed land in the name Q/' the fact0fy.,'V_V_VVV V' ' (binplaeementwaffirnt orderfor purchase Q/'" plant fnaC!1.inery_for the factory and payment Qf advance or opening of irrevocable aferedit with suppliers.' '{3}A'eomrnencernent' Qf civil work and construction Qfb1u'laing for (,hefactory:
31.
id] sanction of requisite term loansfrom banks financial inst.iti:.tions: _ V' _ {e} any other step prescribed by (hf-i,v_' {3(3vIT,i}:AfVT:(V?'LI"
Government in t'hi.s fefiard. «_ "f.'f1I"(:)I.£g;'V2I"'ib<.. notification.
17. It is in this .1z'€garAd'"ii-istiécessary'to see ciause 6C which reads as under:» VA 6C. iji11i)!.emVer1.tVV" Industrial Entrefiireniéixr' Mém1mfandz1:'m&~ it .... "ti:;*J1eVV_f"or taking effective 'stepsitxshallv:'«.be«.._t'ugo . years and commercial goiioductiorisfia!it'Co_tiin7te:'nce within four years with
-_ t'fA1-5;: date of filing the Industrial '"Esn.t.reprerieiir Menioratidttrn u)1'.t'h the Central V dd C§one'n1&rner1t:,V" tttt iijibiiiing which the Intdustiriai EIgfi.Téprfl€§?-QLLF Memorandum shall stand de- ' asfar as provisions of this Order are c;>1'icerried and the performance guararz tee shall " I_a¢':;;'m;;ezr;ed.-
Provided that the Chief Director (Sugar), ' Department of Food and Public Distribution, 32 A/Itr1ist'ry of Consumer Affairs. Food and Distn'buti.on. on the recomrnendation 1- concerned State Government may give of one year not exceeding six' 'rno'r2t'hs'.t&at_: ' A for implenlentiing the ITldt1:;':?.I"I'fC',!'_lA' *~Entir'£3 Memorandum and corrt.rI'1er.1cerrieatiof ccer~ni:'tercvial production thereof'.
Similarly, it is 'a__ecessairy:_ ..sub~c1e.i1se [2] of 61?, which reads as under :-- H 6E. Appiiietitiori. of and 6D to the sfiersort~ " 1'ndi;s'tria£ Entrepreneur Memo't=af1dupt _ Vfalreadu been g1ckn.oieIe11g_ ed i 2}.' The industrial Entrepreneur Merrtorartdiimiahas atready been acknowledged as 'on.' dC1i'c'€"'Q]h'£vt1fSV'?1Of§f'iC(Z[liOT1 but who has taken ej}eci:--izge specified in explanation 4 to the V' i' _ shallfumtsh a _peI_'formance guarantee . crore to the Chief [)irector{Su.ga,r).
Qeparitifitertt of Food and Public Disi'ri.bution.. 'Miizlistry of Consumer A_[fai.rs. Food and Public A 'T I)tstrt'bution within a period ofsix months of issue i of this notif'ieatior1 failing which the In.dusr:rial 33 Ef1I1'"€pI"€!"i€i.LI' Memorandum of the C0nCem"edi"'--._"'- person shall stand de--reCogru'zed as is PT'0Ui3i0T1S 62]' this Order are concerned." '
18. in the aforesaid _]'L1dgr§1'ieiit"'oi'¢_the Ape§{._CVQVui*t it. is 7. held that these Sugarcarze operation. Therefore, transitetgetijrovishiveiz5 srespeett of [EMS filed before tije...;1I11e;j1i;iriiem'"fa.\v1ii{m..;;i1s\i jhis Order applies. If on the day Order came into force, if vthié .¢'n:r§;i5ferié;uf_:: which is duly acknow1edgeci"'vaHAii:: }'r€_:_ 11.01:.'viteilgeriitteffeetive steps by the time was obligatory on his part to furnish of Rs.1 Crore to the Chief Dir'e{:t€)i3. Sugair, 6 months failing which the IEM shalt si:ai1d ciefrejCo.gnized. it is not in dispute that the petitioner in this eagefhvas.Vfu1'i1isi1ed the said peribriiianee guarantee of Rs.] CI'O:!T€. ,__'l'i';erfei'01'e, ii. is an admitted fact", that no effeetwe steps had been" taken on the day the 8.I11€F1diI1€1"1t. Came into force.
--..C}~:a 6[(:) says if within 2 years from the date of filing of the iv, 34 {EM effective steps are not taken and tl1ereafi.er \V}"i',:l'V1.ll":l:"4V.'y,(j'3E11'S from the date of IEM eonzmercial p1'0ciu(:t.i0r1 is rib-t Cor1'11€1'er:i'C.ed;.. the IEM shall stand de~reCogni_sed.__'anél th"e=..:pei"i'oi*rI1ar1ee' guarantee shall be forfeited. F3xpla.:121ifi'o.i~1'OV41sets_out a,ifl1at~O.are the effective steps which a1'e"i::o"'he taken. .BeOf?,_)re.:._t'ha.tV el'feetive steps could be taken in the ai"o1'es:aidVA_VC}ove1'nn'1e1it. Order and the Sugarcane:"(Colnt.1'2oll. p1'io1" to amendment. the distance Certi.fieat;e:AiVs-a, allotment of cane area. In tl41\\Qs_":v petitioner did not make anyi O+j.ov\l/le1'nrI1ent requesting for iiiprineiple anTd"l~.allotr;'1eiit. of cane area. Only when there are the Government with such a requjesvt as s:learlf1'olI11 the Government policy as well as the * pro'visions ofothe Order as amended the question of C.oI1sidering arise. If there is only one ap-plication, the question. .oI;'jpl19it)1'ity would not arise. Under the Government. policy"or3unde1' the Governizient Order no obligation is cast on "-"_i:!1e lC1oVerr1ment to call for object.ion.s from the public or to O iioiify all the persons who have filed Il'.i',l\/I.s as ll1f;'._V will not have 35 necessary informat.ion. Only if applications are:_'ii7i_l_ed"'--_fo1' permission by a person who has IBM, then an obli:gat_iAon.:ist on them to issue notice to suchwpersons. Vlcoi:1sider"A.their"» objections and hear them and accoi*din'gt.o the Apolicy .and7!1he terms of the Government Or»c1.e"r~.giveA'et'fec.t_ preference embedded in the .asg\gvell..as«Vtfiove1'nn1ent Order. If the applieani,"i:s.oniy Vf.oi,ie""tl'.1e:'qtiestion of granting preference or h_.ea.ring,t'h'e.-- not applicants would not of the petitioner that the to principles of natural justice,' the [been heard, the petitioner has not been'notifiedgdisclpoil ll:ri~-o}stl.1l)stanoe. It is here the admitted faeptslsiiow that1.V_lthe petitioner is aware of the necessity to file sage}: an:appl_ication. In "fact he filed an application for setting .g'p__a1 §a<:t:'ory at Afzalpur which is hardly 25 kms from Alrnel in which he is heard. he has been granted inprinciple .pe1'rnission. As no application was filed in respect of Almel l =.VlVi.1l.alge, he was not heard and there was no necessity to hear _.:him. Therefore the order passed granting the fifth respondent- l%V,. .
36 the only applicant. before the G-ove1"r1me1'1i.. eaimot'i3e'"«found fault with.
19. In so far as the argtinient tli_at~'till:*Lhe years from the date of filing oi;.t'l'1e IBM"; the o¢g};si>:§1;a1e;11;3 ltoluldh not have considered r8qL1_e_st'~,i:Qi*.yy¢vt'vhe resfjoondelit is concerned, in the faets--.:doi7, has no substance. Though two yeaifsis theVpe'l;io'd. Vpreisefiloved:"l23'i*;implementing the project for acknowledgement of IEM immediately. Firstly he should;_seel«:A and secondly for allotment of canehareal :.4not"nie11tioned in the explanation but \P\Tl'1>>i'('§l"l'Vi&'-,.£1 plfeeeldent for taking effective steps. first effective step is the purchase of the land i11"il1ey,_'i1an1'e of the ['acio1'y. 111 the instant case it is not in .Adisp1,it',e-"t,l1at the petitioner has purchased 54 acres of land. ll -,VV'i'--henA"said land is purchased dtiriiig the period May 2007 to July 62007. In fact the land is purchasecl aftei' filing of the Writ'. 'flag,//4 37' Petition on 18.1.2007. The sale deeds produced ease discloses that he has purchased two acres of 444/2A1 under a sale deed dated Slvttietlltifilb in Almel Village, whereas the 1'erii4ain'i::li%'f'» is situated in Guridagi Village wiiieh islata distance from Almel Village. It was colriteiidegd Villalge is also situated in Almel in Gundagi Village should be treateidgasal under IEM. The copy of the belA{oi;e"the:lifClourt. The proposed industry villas at Almel Village and not in Almeligfioblild out. it is because no new sugar factory within a radius of 15 Kms from the iex;isting.lfa.et:ory and once an IBM is filed for setting up an inVd'iist5ry' atpa partieular Village, no other person can file IBM 1 lin_ten;d,iiig to up a sugar factory within a. radius of 35 kms. 'I'h,erei'ore.: l'i_nlt.1ie application it. is Clearly 1nei1t.ioned that the er1t.1'e"pr_e3neu1' should I.nent.ion the location. The petitioner has inentioiied it as Almel. But admittedly in Alrnel lie has purchased two acres whereas 50 acres is the minirnum land 38 required for sugar factory which he has purchased e1't.'*G'ta.cn'dagi Village which is 5 to 6 kms lrom Almel.
purchase is subsequent to the fil_iing,__of the' "'»?lf_rit.ll"vPetit.1onI"
Therefore. from this undisputed relgistere-dd sa»le"de'ed"
recitals therein, it can be safely "said that the iirstgr'eqVuirer11en_tll1 of Explanation 4 is not con113liecl____\:2\l}'i-*.:.l_1. K
21. The second.-'reequi1'e1'nent:xis he should place firm order l'QTS'{)t11';§til.1;1S€""Of ltfiachinery for the factory and payments of é1equisitelA'advancetor opening of irrecoverable letter credit '7\rJit_h'usu«ppl.i._ers..' Documents are produced to show compliance"--with this 'provision. A careful reading of the sai(;l;jpro.Vision"'shows the orders are placed t.o set up a sugar "or before January 2006. whereas the land is 2007. In the entire order nowhere the villegge Aliinel' is mentioned. It is on record that the petitioner is .' No. 2 's-1.igar producer in the country. They have number of sttggtlr factories. As is clear from the mate1'ia.l on record they _..int',er1d to set. up sugar factory in vario'u.s places and the 39 documents now sought to be produced is a doeuineintyywhich certainly not depict the machinery to set up at have placed order {or setting up industry in sortie .other"p1}§ce'; to substantiate their claim they have in T it fact, admittedly they are setting at From a perusal of the docuri1en:tsi.tve are._ 'there nothing on record to shoyv that"the_:'sai'd_project-i.s setting up an industry at Almell tlierefore, the second requirement V d u l _' _tllird-.jreduirement is commencement of civil work lhtsuilding for the factory. It was fairly submitted OE."-the: filing of the Writ Petition, the interim ordersifvpassed "wand for want of clearance from the authorities, till today no Civil work has term loans from banks or financial institutions. Documents Co__rnn1en.eed. the place even after 5 years after the EEM. ,. The fourth requirenient is sanction of requisite 40 are produced in t.his regard to show the attempt on of the petitioner to raise loans. Those documents djo'*11ot:1ndie"a1:e that the petitioner is raising funds-§"o'r Almel. As the petitioner is in business :i1e"Wa1it'..t.o_raise~linoney for his business. These docuriients do iiot indioa1;e"th.at--'is the' loan granted or sanctioned for sefiilrig up a i'aCtoIf_y in3Almel.
24. Frointhe a:'fore'sé.idviindispiitedvlrnaterial on record it is clear date of IBM, the effective si;eps.:are1--:n:ot Epetitioner. As is clear from clause,l:._'E3E*. -lde--recognized if effective steps are not talgeii and commercial production is not..eolmnienced._yVithi1i four years from the date of filing of the . IEM. _'iherei'o_re, as even after four years let; alone production, " the.1'sug;:r_..,rac£m-3: has not come up, no effective steps are taken, petitioriei' has no subsisting right. It is well settled that the it iwrit Coiirts would not issue futile writs. It is for enforcement of '._l"undarne1'1i.al right or statutory right these extra--ordi.nary writs issued. Apart from establishing his right, the petitioner \; »' 41 should come to the Court: with clean hands and his condtict should be bona tide. When once alter registering'"t.he--._liE}M, though they are fully conscious that they application to the State Governrnenté seel{fiir1'gl'_':vinprinciple'» permission and allotment of cane area,1'tI'i<lt1gh_ltliey application to set. up a factoryv"'aty Afaa-Pour.' such an application in respect pilot filed an application it is not openliltoy theiih that inprinciple clearance is given. to respect of Almel behind theili. litherri, contrary to the orders.:K_AThis »of".»tlieir's -l is stifficient to disentitle them from "re_liefvlat of this Court. Even otherwise. theyjhave notltalyieii effective steps to set. up an industry at Airnel Viiiagein terms of the IBM and. therefore. even on merits il"thely_Varelriotiieiiititied to the relief sought for in this Writ peti'tion.__'" material on record discloses that the ' fifth Vlpyhlresponcient after their {EM is acknowledged, promptly applied =to'~-the Government. and their request, is considered and l' ....Governn1ent': Orders are passed and thereafter they have taken 3 < 5}/J' /.. ' 42 immediate steps to implement the project. and they implemented the project. They are new to the fieid. entitled to an opportunity and COHii'i'b=l1i€ Country. We do not find any lnerit Accordingly, it is dismissed. {»Z'.<):i'iseque'n1.1Vy,ihe.vWif1t..Ap;§ea1 also dismissed.
yyéd/It M_ JUDGE is Sd/u JUDGE dknzdn/ck}