Karnataka High Court
Askins Biofuels Private Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 22.01.2025
Pronounced on : 07.02.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.107316 OF 2024 (GM - RES)
C/QW
WRIT PETITION No.100295 OF 2025 (GM - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.107316 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. ALAGAWADI BIRESHWAR SUGARS PVT. LTD.,
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
FACTORY AT: SY.NO. 106, VILLAGE ALAGAWADI
TALUK RAIBAG, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 591 317
OFFICE AT: 198/137, REGULATED MARKET ROAD,
BAMBOO BAZAR, DAVANGERE - 577 001
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
PATTIHAL
Location: High
MR. GURUNATH N. JOSHI
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, ... PETITIONER
Dharwad
(BY SRI GAUTAM S.BHARADWAJ AND
SRI PRASHANT F.GOUDAR, ADVOCATES)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRIES (MSME AND MINES)
135, 1ST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER OF CANE DEVELOPMENT AND
DIRECTORATE OF SUGAR
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, CBAB COMPLEX,
F-BLOCK, VTH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 008.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DC COMPOUND,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
4. M/S. SHRI BRAHMANAND SAGAR JAGGERY INDUSTRIES
ALAGWADI - 591 317
TALUK RAIBAG, DISTRICT BELAGAVI
(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 150/6
BEHIND K.E.B., VIDYANAGAR, HARUGERI,
TALUK RAIBAG, DISTRICT BELGAUM - 591 220
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
ASHOK S/O JINNAPPA ASKI.
5. M/S. ASKINS BIOFUELS PRIVATE LIMITED
ALAGAWADI - 591 317
TALUK RAIBAG, DISTRICT BELAGAVI
BEHIND K.E.B., VIDYANAGAR,
HARUGERI - 591 220,
3
TALUK RAIBAG, DISTRICT BELGAUM
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
ASHOK S/O JINNAPPA ASKI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M., AAG AND
SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R3;
SRI ANIRUDH R.J.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - I) ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1, 2 AND 3
TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DTED. 30.05.2023 BEARING NO.
DSK/DEV/30/2021-22/158 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ORDER DATED. 21.10.2023,
BEARING DSK/LGL/57/2023/937 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D; II) ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO ENSURE
STOPPAGE OF SUGARCANE CRUSHING UNIT OF THE INTEGRATED
UNITS OF RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5, PURSUANT TO ORDER
DATED. 21.10.2023, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND TO
COMPLY WITH THE MANDATE OF SUGARCANE (CONTROL)
(AMENDMENT) ORDERS OF 2006, 2016, 2018, 2019 AND 2021,
ISSUED UNDER ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955.
IN WRIT PETITION No.100295 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. ASKINS BIOFUELS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 150/6,
GOKAK ROAD, ALAGAVADI,
4
HARUGERI, RAIBAG TALUKA,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 317,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. ASHOK J. ASKI.
2. M/S. SHRI BRAHMANANDASAGAR JAGGERY INDUSTRIES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 150/6,
GOKAK ROAD, ALAGAVADI,
HARUGERI, RAIBAG TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 317,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. MAHAVEER J. ASKI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANIRUDH R.J.NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNDER SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT
AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR
GOVERNMENT OF KARANTAKA
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
CBAB COMPLEX, F BLOCK,
V FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 008.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
5
D.C.COMPOUND,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M., AAG AND
SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND/OR SUCH OR OTHER WRIT OR ORDER
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
04.01.2025 BEARING NO. ¹L 311 J¸ïfJ¥sï 2024 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRY I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 1 (ANNEXURE-A); B. ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDUMUS AND/OR SUCH OR OTHER WRIT OR ORDER
HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS ARE FREE TO PROCURE SUGARCANE
TO THE EXTENT OF 5% FROM THE CANE ALLOTTED AREA OF ANY
SUGAR FACTORY IN TERMS OF THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA IN EARMARKING 95% OF RESERVED AREA
TO A SUGAR FACTORY AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.01.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner, in Writ Petition No.107316 of 2024,
M/s Alagawadi Bireshwar Sugars Private Limited, a Company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is knocking at the doors
6
of this Court, seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature
of mandamus directing respondents 1, 2 and 3 to implement orders
dated 30-05-2023 and 21-10-2023 both passed by the 2nd
respondent/Commissioner of Cane Development and Directorate of
Sugar, Government of Karnataka. Petitioner also seeks a sequel
mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 to ensure stoppage of sugarcane
to crushing unit of the integrated units of respondents 4 and 5 in
terms of the order dated 21-10-2023. Respondents 4 and 5, in Writ
Petition No.107316 of 2024, are petitioners 2 and 1 respectively, in
Writ Petition No.100295 of 2025. For the sake of convenience, the
rank of the parties will be referred to in this order as obtaining in
Writ Petition No.107316 of 2024.
2. Heard Sri Gautam S. Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.107316 of 2024; Sri J.M.
Gangadhar, AAG and Sri Sharad V. Magdum, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 in both the
writ petitions and Sri Anirudh R. J. Nayak, learned counsel for the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.100295 of 2025 and respondents 4
and 5 in Writ Petition No.107316 of 2024.
7
3. Facts, in brief, germane in Writ Petition No.107316 of
2024, are as follows:-
The petitioner in the subject petition files an Industrial
Entrepreneurs Memorandum ('IEM' for short) on 07-07-2017 to
manufacture raw refined sugar from sugarcane juice and molasse.
The petitioner is said to be existing sugar factory carrying out
commercial production of sugar in the area. It is the averment in
the petition that the petitioner fits into the definition of 'existing
sugar factory' as per Explanation-1 to Clause 6A of the Sugarcane
Amendment Order 2006. The 4th respondent/Brahmanand Sagar
Jaggery Industries, which is said to be located in the southern part
of the petitioner, under the guise of setting up of jaggery unit, is
alleged to have started procuring raw sugarcane for crushing on
installation of a sugarcane crushing unit. The said jaggery industry
floats a Company in the name of Askins Biofuels Private Limited and
started setting up of distillery for the manufacture of ethanol. The
petitioner immediately complained to the 2nd respondent and other
Authorities to prevent illegal setting up of sugarcane crushing unit
by the jaggery industry, the 4th respondent. When no action was
8
taken, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in Writ
Petition No.100519 of 2022. This Court, in terms of its order dated
15-03-2022, directed the concerned Authorities to consider those
representations, which are in the nature of complaint of the
petitioner.
4. The 2nd respondent, by his order dated 25-07-2022,
directed 4th and 5th respondents to stop construction and not to
commence any production activity wherein ethanol would be
produced from sugarcane juice, as it would be violative of
Sugarcane Control Order. Respondents 4 and 5 aggrieved by the
said order of the 2nd respondent, were at the doors of this Court in
Writ Petition No.102856 of 2022. By an order dated 06-01-2023, a
coordinate Bench of this Court, confirms the order of the 2nd
respondent by dismissing the writ petition. Respondents 4 and 5
preferred writ appeal in Writ Appeal No.100075 of 2023. The writ
appeal was allowed with liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal
of its grievance against the 4th respondent before the appropriate
Authority. The result of consideration is, passing of an order dated
30-05-2023, directing the 4th respondent to stop its power crushing
9
activity. The 4th respondent, being aggrieved by the order dated
30-05-2023, challenged it before the Apex Court, invoking Article
32 of the Constitution of India in Writ Petition No.650 of 2023. The
said writ petition was dismissed, reserving liberty to approach the
High Court.
5. The 4th respondent, then challenges the order dated
30-05-2023 in Writ Petition No.104198 of 2023. This Court, by its
order dated 26-07-2023, permitted respondent No.4 to run jaggery
industry and manufacture only jaggery on undertaking given by the
4th respondent. This Court reserved liberty to all the Authorities to
inspect the property as and when required to prevent any illegality.
Respondents 4 and 5, being integrated units, has been the
allegation of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent, on such allegation,
directs conduct of inspection and after hearing both respondents 4
and 5 passes an order dated 21-10-2023 directing both the units to
stop operation of crushing of sugarcane. Respondents 4 and 5
being again aggrieved challenged the said order in Writ Petition
No.106747 of 2023. This Court by an order dated 28-11-2023
permitted respondent No.5 to operate its distillery and respondent
10
No.4 to operate its jaggery industry, but prohibited sale of
sugarcane juice or syrup and its supply to 5th respondent. On
08-02-2024, this Court, again by way of an interim order, directed
the respondents/Authorities to conduct inspection of the factories of
respondents 4 and 5 to ascertain their activities.
6. A report comes to be submitted on 12-02-2024 in the
aforesaid writ petition - Writ Petition No.106747 of 2023, wherein it
was found that respondents 4 and 5 are integrated units and are
involved in production of brown sugar and not jaggery. Pursuant to
the said report, the 4th respondent sought modification of the
interim order that was operating for supplying sugarcane juice and
syrup and sought permission to crush 5 percent of the total
sugarcane grown within 15 Kms. radius of the petitioner's sugar
factory. This Court rejected any such modification that was sought
by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent approaches the Division
Bench of this Court by filing a writ appeal. The writ appeal was not
entertained, as it was against an interim order, but directed early
disposal of the writ petition. Respondents 4 and 5 did not move for
disposal of the writ petitions, but withdrew Writ Petition Nos.
11
104198 of 2023 and 106747 of 2023, by filing a memo. With the
withdrawal of the said writ petitions, contending that the two orders
viz., orders dated 30-05-2023 and 21-10-2023 which were
challenged in the writ petitions have revived, the petitioner sought
implementation of those orders. The orders were not implemented.
Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition
seeking the aforesaid prayer.
7. After issuance of notice in the subject petition, the 2nd
respondent passed an order on 04-01-2025, implementing the
earlier orders dated 30-05-2023 and 21-10-2023. Challenging the
said order, comes the companion petition by respondents 4 and 5
who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.100295 of 2025, seeking
certain sequential mandamus. These matters are heard at that
stage.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.107316 of 2024 would take this Court through various
orders passed from time to time and they reaching some finality in
the order dated 04-01-2025. He submits that respondents 4 and 5
12
cannot go beyond what they are licensed to do. The order dated
30-05-2023 notices that the 4th respondent is a power crusher
under the Karnataka Licensing of Crusher Order, 1980 and the 5th
respondent which is an integrated unit of the 4th respondent, was
operating in violation of Sugarcane Control Order. All these are now
set right by the order dated 04-01-2025. No doubt, respondents
challenged both the orders in Writ Petition Nos. 104198 of 2023 and
106747 of 2023. They withdrew the challenge. In the light of
withdrawal of challenge, respondents 4 and 5 cannot have any
grievance with the implementation of orders challenged therein. He
would submit that the issue is plain and simple, having withdrawn
the challenge, respondents 4 and 5 have lost their right and having
been licensed for a particular activity, they cannot go beyond that
activity.
9. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents
4 and 5/petitioners in the companion petition, Writ Petition
No.100295 of 2025 would contend that the orders dated
30-05-2023 and 21-10-2023 proceeded on an erroneous
presumption. On 06-12-2024 a further spot inspection was
13
conducted and no sample of jaggery was taken from the premises
of the 2nd petitioner in Writ Petition No.100295 of 2025. It is his
contention that the Division Bench takes note of the history of the
matter in Writ Appeal No.100075 of 2023 and expressly grants
permission to the petitioners/respondents 4 and 5, to crush sugar
cane and produce sugarcane juice or syrup for sale to standalone
distillery. The order of the Division Bench was on 31-03-2023,
which tacitly supersedes the earlier orders dated 30-05-2023 and
21-10-2023. He would submit that respondents 4 and 5 /
petitioners in the companion petition were shocked to receive the
order dated 04-01-2025, which prohibits manufacture of sugar. It
is, therefore, they have challenged the same in the companion
petition.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
11. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events, and
the dates are a matter of record. However, they would require a
14
little reiteration for resolution of the issue in the lis. The petitioner
and respondents 4 and 5 are at squabble. The squabble is with
regard to production of sugar, jaggery and ethanol and their sale
undertaken by the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. It is the
claim of the petitioner that it has IEM from the Central Government
and it is considered to be a new sugar factory to crush the amount
of sugarcane that is sanctioned. Respondent No.4 is said to be an
industrial jaggery factory, which in the guise of setting up jaggery
unit, is alleged to have started production of raw sugar by crushing
sugarcane on installation of sugar unit. This leads to a complaint
made by the petitioner. The complaint not being considered, leads
the petitioner to this Court in Writ Petition No.100915 of 2022. A
coordinate Bench of this Court, in terms of its order dated
15-03-2022, disposed of the writ petition by the following order:
"3. In view thereof, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Respondents No.3 to 7 are directed to consider the various representations and complaints filed by the petitioner as also the internal communication among the said respondents in Annexure-V dated 03.01.2022, Annexure-W dated 21.01.2022, Annexure-X dated 21.01.2022, Annexure-Y and Annexure-Z both dated 11.02.2022, etc. as under.
15ii) Needless to say that the respondents shall follow the due procedure, as also the Principles of Natural Justice, they shall furnish copies of any other documents apart from the above mentioned to the respondents No.8 and 9.
iii) Respondents No.8 and 9 are permitted to file their reply to the said letters within a period of three weeks from today.
iv) Thereafter, the respondents No.3 to 7 shall afford an opportunity of hearing both the petitioners and respondents No.8 and 9 so as to enable them to submit their say in the matter and thereafter pass necessary orders.
v) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
vi) All contentions of the petitioner and the respondents are kept open to be decided by the concerned authority.
vii) Needless to say that respondents No.4 and 5 shall pass order within a period of three weeks, of respondents No.8 and 9 filing their reply after giving an opportunity of hearing.
viii) Thereafter, depending on the decision taken by respondents No.4 and 5, if there is any decision to be taken by the respondent No.3, such decision shall be taken by respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the orders by respondents No.4 and 5 to respondent No.3.
ix) Subsequent thereto the orders of respondent No.3 are to be communicated to respondent No.6 and 7 for any action who shall act on the same within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order of respondent No.3.
16x) Writ petition stands disposed of."
Claiming to be aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondents 4 and 5 approached Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100075 of 2023.
The Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal on 31-03-2023, by the following order:
".... .... ....
11. The established rules of interpretation of a statutory provision would provide that we must construe the language having regard to the object and purpose which the legislature had in view while enacting the provision and in the context of the setting in which they occur. In K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam & another, (1981) 4 SCC 173, the famous words of Judge Learned Hand were beneficially extracted as follows:
"... it is true that the words used, even in their literal sense, are the primary and ordinarily the most reliable, source of interpreting the meaning of any writing: be it a statute, a contract or anything else. But it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary; but to remember that statues always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning."
12. In that view of the matter, we are primarily required to find out from the objective of the amendment as to whether the rule making authority envisaged the establishment of standalone distilleries within the reserved area, protected under the Sugarcane Control Order as a mistake or mischief. If so, whether the rule making authority intended to remove such mischief by amending the definition clause of the term 'factory 17 or sugar factory' and bring within the confines of the Sugarcane Control Order, the standalone distilleries which were permitted to be established within the reserved area.
13. We have gone through the notification dated 31.05.2021 and we do not find the 'scope or object' for such amendment. Therefore, we are constrained to say that a plain reading of the amended provision does not suggest inclusion of standalone distilleries within the defined meaning of 'factory or sugar factory'.
14. We are also of the considered opinion that if the rule making authority intended to bring within the confines of the Sugarcane Control Order any standalone distillery which was permitted to procure molasses initially and thereafter by a subsequent notification issued on 14.01.2021 permitted to procure sugarcane juice/ syrup for manufacturing ethanol, then the rule making authority would have also expressed its intention as to whether the provisions would be made operative prospectively or retrospectively. The rule making authority was required to provide for the established standalone distilleries either by appropriate saving clause or providing a redressal mechanism. Usually, when a vested/ accrued interest is sought to be taken away, then appropriate arrangements will have to be made by the legislature or the rule making authority to redress such grievances. It is by now well settled in a catena of decisions, including the recent decision in the case of Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Registrar, Co- operative Societies & others, (2022) 4 SCC 363, that an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available under the existing rule should be held as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, we should say that if the rule making authority had indeed consciously drawn the prior existing standalone distilleries within the provisions of the Sugarcane Control Order, depriving them of the accrued right of procuring molasses, sugarcane juice/ syrup from the sugar factories, then such standalone distilleries would be entitled to seek a declaration that the amendment should not be made operational retrospectively. Such a claim would be justifiably upheld.
1815. This Court should also notice that if the provisions of the Sugarcane Control Order are made applicable to standalone distilleries, such as, appellant No.1, then, the existence and continuation of such distilleries would come under immediate threat on the ground that they are established in violation of the express provisions of the Control Order, viz., Clause-6A which prohibits establishment of a second sugar factory within the radius of 15 kms. There cannot be partial application of the provisions of the Control Order. Decommissioning the establishment or cancellation of the IEM granted to appellant No.1 on the ground that the grant of IEM is in contravention of the provisions of the Control Order would be a fertile ground for appellant No.1 to contend that an accrued right cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment. Therefore, such an amendment, if intended by rule making authority, it would seriously prejudice the interest of such standalone distilleries. On the other hand, if it was the intention of the department to prevent such standalone distilleries from procurement of sugarcane juice/syrup, it could have simply withdrawn the notification dated 14.01.2021, restricting them to procure molasses only. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we are of the opinion that there was no intent of the rule making authority to bring within the sweep of the amended provision standalone distilleries which were licenced by the Department.
16. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the amended provision vide notification dated 31.05.2021 brought to the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966, will not bring within its sweep the standalone distilleries established consequent to the notification dated 08.03.2019 and 14.01.2021 issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution. We, therefore proceed to declare that the standalone distilleries such as appellant no.1 herein established in terms of the notification dated 08.03.2019 and 14.01.2021 for manufacturing ethanol are not governed by the provisions of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966.
17. We make it clear that we have not considered the grievance raised at the hands of the 5th respondent as regards appellant No.2 herein. Therefore, respondent No.5 is free to approach the competent authority to redress its grievance as regards appellant No.2 herein if it is of the opinion that 19 appellant No.2 has violated any of the provisions contained in the Sugarcane Control Order or any other law for that matter.
18. Consequently, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the 4th respondent-Commissioner for Cane Development and the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 in W.P. No. 102856/2022. Ordered accordingly.
In view of disposal of the appeal on merits, pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off."
The Division Bench notices the dispute and declares that the standalone distilleries such as, respondents 4 and 5 have established in terms of the Notifications dated 08-03-2019 and 14-01-2021 for manufacturing ethanol and are not governed by the provisions of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. But, the Division Bench further notices that it has not gone into the grievance of the petitioner/respondent No.5 therein and, therefore, he was given permission to approach the competent Authority to redress its grievance as regards appellant No.2/4th respondent herein. The writ appeal was allowed and the order passed by the coordinate Bench referred to supra was set aside. Since the Division Bench had granted permission to consider the grievance of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, on consideration of the representation and 20 complaint filed by the petitioner, passed a detailed order finally observing and holding as follows:
".... .... ....
24. The report of the Director of S.Nijalingappa Sugar Institute, Belagavi and Environment Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board have also clearly confirmed the manufacture of sugarcane juice by the Sri Brahmanand Sagar Jaggery Industries by crushing sugarcane at its new Milling Unit. The present site of establishment is located exactly towards the southern portion of the site of establishment of M/s Alagawadi Bireshwar Sugars Pvt.Ltd. The entire village of Alagawadi has already been allotted as reserved area along with 11 other villages on 11-07-2007 to M/s Alagawadi Bireshwar Sugars Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, in view of the bar contained in the Karnataka Licensing Crushers Order, 1980, Shri Brahmanand Sagar Jaggery Industries cannot operate its power crusher at the village of Alagawadi. It is also clear from the records that Shri Brahmanand Sagar Jaggery Industries has not obtained any license for operating power crusher within the reserved area. Further Shri Brahmanand Sagar Jaggery Industries has not obtained any permit from Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi for purchasing sugarcane in reserved area for manufacturing of sugarcane juice. It is also clearly admitted by the Shri Brahmanand Sugar Jaggery Industries Limited that they have obtained permission to produce sugar cane juice/sugar syrup.
25. Thus, it is crystal clear that Shri Brahmanand Sugar Jaggery Industries, cannot operate the working of power crusher by crushing sugarcane at its present site of establishment since the same is prohibited under Clause 3 of the Karnataka Licensing Crushers Order, 1980 and cannot procure and purchase sugarcane since the same is barred under Clause 4 of The Karnataka Licensing Crushers Order, 1980.
26. Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons and documents analyzed, I pass the following order:
21ORDER No.DSK/DEV/30/2021-22/158 Dated:30.05.2023
1. In exercise of powers conferred to me under clause 6, 7 and 8 of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 Shri Brahmanand Sagar Jaggery Industries is hereby directed to stop operating the Power Crusher and crushing sugarcane at its present site at Alagawadi Village and hereby direct Shri Brahmanand Sagar Jaggery Industries to stop procuring and purchasing of sugarcane for crushing in a reserve area immediately.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi is directed to ensure the implementation of this order and prevent Shri Brahmanand Sagar Jaggery Industries from further operating its Power Crusher by stopping the crushing of sugarcane and purchasing of sugarcane. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to search premises of Shri Brahmanand Sagar Jaggery Industries and seize such Power Crusher and seal the premises thereof.
This order is issued on this 30th day of May 2023 with my seal and signature.
Sd/-
(Shivanand H.Kalakeri), Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar."
It appears that respondents 4 and 5 did not stop their activity. This led to another order passed by the 2nd respondent on 21-10-2023, by observing as follows:
".... .... ....
15. The Central Government vide notification dated 31-05-2021 in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 amended the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, to Sugarcane (Control) Amendment 22 Order, 2021, Clause 2(c) of the Sugarcane (Control) Amendment Order, 2021 reads as under:
"(c) "factory or sugar factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof in any part of which sugarcane is crushed and either sugar is manufactured by vacuum pan process or at its own option, ethanol is manufactured from sugarcane juice or sugar or sugar syrup or molasses, including B-Heavy molasses;
16. Hence, in the present case also it is crystal clear from the establishment of the units that a sugarcane is being crushed in the unit owned by Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd. and by vacuum pan process ethanol is manufactured from sugar syrup. Therefore, the said integrated unit clearly falls within the definition of "factory or sugar factory" and the same cannot be set up at its present establishment, since the same is located on the Southern side of Alagawadi Bireshwar Sugar Pvt. Ltd., which is an existing sugar factory and whose Industrial Entrepreneurs Memorandum (IEM) has been taken on record as a "New Sugar Factory" by the Chief Director (Sugar) by its order dated 20-10-2015 as provided under Explanation 2 to Clause 6-A of the Sugarcane (Control) (Amendment) Order, 2006. Algawadi Bireshwar Sugar Pvt. Ltd., has been provided with an extension of time to implement its Industrial Entrepreneurs Memorandum (IEM) and commence commercial operation up to 7-07-2024. Therefore, in view of the prohibition imposed under Clause 6-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Amendment Order, 2006 neither Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., not Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries can set up a sugar factory with 15 Kms. radius of any existing or new sugar factory.
Therefore, in view of the above-mentioned findings, reasons and documents scrutinized and in order to implement the provisions of Sugarcane (Control) Order,1966 and its Amendments of 2006 and 2021, I hereby pass the following order:
ORDER DSK/LGL/57/2023/937 Date: 21.10.2023
1. In exercise of powers conferred under Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 11 of sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and Clause 6A of Sugarcane (Control) (Amendment) Order, 2006, Askins Biofuels Pvt.Ltd., 23 and Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries are hereby directed to stop operation of Sugar Factory and crushing of sugarcane at its present site bearing R.S.No.106/2 & R.S.No.106/3 of Alagawadi Village, Raibag Taluk, Belagavi District and also hereby directed to immediately stop procuring and purchasing of sugarcane for crushing the same for manufacture of ethanol.
2. You are further hereby directed to remove the said integrated unit of sugar factory since the same is in violation of Clause 6-A of Sugarcane (Control) (Amendment) Order, 2006.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi is directed to ensure the implementation of this order and prevent Askins Biofuels Pvt.
Ltd. and Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries from operating the sugar factory and prevent the procuring and purchasing of sugarcane and crushing of the same.
This order is issued on this 21 day of October, 2023 with my seal and signature.
Sd/-
(M.R.Ravi Kumar), Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar."
Both these orders became subject matter of challenge in the two petitions - Writ Petition No.104198 of 2023 and Writ Petition No.106747 of 2023. Intermittent orders were passed by coordinate Benches.
12. A coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 08-02-2024 had directed inspection of factories of both the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, to ascertain manufacturing 24 activity taking place therein. The inspection report was then forwarded to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent places it before this Court. On the inspection report, respondents 4 and 5 seek modification of the order. The modification comes to be rejected by a coordinate Bench by the following order:
"... .... ....
23. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion without adverting into merits of the matter that a company being a stand alone distillery and the firm manufacturing Jaggery alone and not sugarcane juice/syrup within the radius of 15 kilometers from the respondent sugar factory, in the guise of the Integrated Unit together by crushing sugarcane from the farmers of the reserved area, would certainly violate and infringe upon the rights of the existing Sugar factory under Clause 6A of Sugarcane (Control) (Amendment) Order, 2006. Nothing extraordinary has been made out by the petitioner to modify the order passed by this Court dated 26.7.2023 as the same was made pursuant to the memo and the affidavit filed by the petitioner-firm that it would manufacture only Jaggery. under the circumstances, if this Court were to modify the Interim order passed earlier on 26th July 2023 in W.P. No.104198/2023, it would lead to further conflicting situations and conflict within the three Units i.e, sugar factory, firm and the company.
24. The company, firm and the sugar factory claim that they are all set to carry out their respective activity in terms of IEM. It is needless to mention that the company which is manufacturing Ethanol is at liberty to do so on the basis of its IEM and so also the firm which is manufacturing Jaggery is at liberty to do so in accordance with its IEM.
(vi) Result 25
25. Under the circumstances, with great respect to the order dated 10th January 2024 passed by my esteemed brother, in these matters, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to Interfere or modify the interim order dated 26th July 2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.104198/2023.
26. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2024 for modification of the interim order dated 26th July 2023 in W.P. No.104198/2023, is hereby dismissed."
This is challenged before the Division Bench by the 4th respondent in Writ Appeal No.100399 of 2024. The Division Bench refuses to interfere with the interim order in an intra-court appeal and rejected by the following order:
".... .... ....
3. We asked both the sides as to why a request should not be made to the learned Single Judge before whom two cases viz., W.P.No.104198/2023 and W.P.No.106747/2023 for expeditious disposal. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-Sugar Factory brought to our notice the Apex Court order in appellant's Writ Petition (Civil) No.650/2023 which reads as under:
"Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, we see no reason to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, if the petitioner avail its remedies in accordance with law, such liberty is reserved to them and the same shall be considered expeditiously on its own merits and in accordance with law. All contentions are left open in that regard to be urged.
Petition is accordingly, disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any."
4. As already mentioned above, this appeal has two constraints viz., i) it is an intra-court proceeding and ii) the challenge is to an interim order whereby the request for 26 modification of another interim order has been rejected. Ordinarily, an intra-court appeal of the kind is not maintainable subject to all just exceptions in view of a Seven Judge Bench decision of this Court in Tamanna Vs.Renuka1. Already, a type of interim relief is being enjoyed by the appellant herein, although it is not to his full satisfaction. Be that as it may. Justice of the case would be met, if the two writ petitions mentioned above are heard and decided on merits expeditiously.
5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant passionately submitted that the lenders of his clients have been pressurizing for repayment of loans and that is creating untold difficulties and therefore, a request be made to the learned Single Judge to take up the subject writ petition for consideration within two weeks. We do not agree with the proposal since every Judge of this Court is saddled with mounting workload. However, to grant some ease, we can make a request to the lender to keep coercive actions in a lull for a short period without any prejudice to them thereby.
In the above circumstances, this appeal is disposed off requesting the learned Single Judge to explore the possibility of final disposal of the two cases viz., W.P.No.104198/2023 and W.P. No.106747/2023 preferably within a period of four weeks. Both the parties have agreed before us that they would not seek any adjournment before the learned Single Judge.
We also request the lenders of appellant-Jaggery Industry to keep coercive action of recovery of loans, if any, in suspended animation, till the disposal of above writ petitions or for a period of six weeks whichever is earlier."
After the order of the Division Bench, a memo is filed by respondents 4 and 5 seeking to withdraw the petitions. The memo reads as follows:
12009 SCC OnLine Kar 123 27 "WRIT PETITION NOS. 104198 & 106747 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1) Shri Brahmanad Sagar Jaggery
Industries, Harugeri-591220
2) M/s Askins Biofuels Pvt.Ltd. .. PETITIONERS
And:
The State of Karnataka and 2 others. .. RESPONDENTS
MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS
1. That the Petitioner in W.P.No.104198 of 2023 was aggrieved by order dated 30-05-2023 passed by the Cane Commissioner and in W.P.No.106747 of 2023 petitioners' were aggrieved by order dated 21-10-2023 of the Cane Commissioner and had sought for quashing of the same.
2. However, in the light of subsequent developments, the petitioner is no longer desirous of pursuing these petitions' and therefore seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw these petitions keeping all issues open.
Hence, this memo."
The memo clearly indicated that the two petitions that they are seeking to withdraw had challenged the orders dated 30-05-2023 and 21-01-2023. Both these orders were against respondents 4 and
5. The petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.
2813. After dismissal of the writ petitions comes a representation from the petitioner to initiate necessary action for again inspecting the jaggery industry and ensure implementation of earlier orders. No action was taken. Therefore, the present writ petition (Writ Petition No.107316 of 2024) was preferred on 04-12-2024. Certain subsequent developments take place. On 6-12-2024, S. Nijalingappa Sugar Institute, Belagavi is said to have conducted a spot inspection of the premises of respondent No.4 and after conduct of inspection, an order dated 04-01-2025 comes about, which is the impugned order in Writ Petition No.100295 of 2025. The references in the order read as follows:
"ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರದ ನಡವ ಗಳ ಷಯ: ೕ ಬ ಾ ನಂದ ಾಗ ಾಗ ಇಂಡ!"ೕ# ಮತು' ಆ¹ÌÃ)* ಬ+ೕವ,-ಯ¯ïì .., ಆಳಗ/ಾ0 gÁAiÀĨÁUï 2ಾಲೂ5ಕು, 6ೆಳ8ಾ 9:ೆ5 ಇವರು ;ಯಮ6ಾ<ರ/ಾ= ಕ>ಾ? ಸಕ@AೆಯನುB ಮತು' ಕCDನ ರಸವನುB Eಾ8ಾಂ ತರ Eಾ0 ಇ ಾBವFGೇ ಉತIನBಗಳನುB ಉ2ಾIJಸುವFದನುB ;KೇLಸುವ ಕು ತು.
ಒದ:ಾ=Gೆ: 1. ಆಯುಕ'ರು ಕಬುD ಅOವೃJQ ಾಗೂ ಸಕ@Aೆ ;Gೇ ಶಕರ ಆGೇಶ ¸ÀASÉå:
DSK/DEV/30/2021-22/158, Dated:30.05.2023
2. ಆಯುಕ'ರು ಕಬುD ಅOವೃJQ ಾಗೂ ಸಕ@Aೆ ;Gೇ ಶಕರ ಆGೇಶ ¸ÀASÉå:
DSK/DEV/30/2021-22/158, Dated 21.10.2023.
3. Eಾನ- ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಉಚ? ಾ-Tಾ®ಯವF U ಅ9 ಸಂVೆ-:
106747/2023 C/W jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 104198/2023 gÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.12 2024 ರಂದು ;ೕ0ದ ಆGೇಶ.
4. ಆಯುಕ'ರು ಕಬುD ಅOವೃJQ ಾಗೂ ಸಕ@Aೆ ;Gೇ ಶಕರ ಪತ ¸ÀASÉå:
DSK/LGL/50/2024-25/1327, Dated:29.11.2024 29
5. ಸ ಾ ರದ ವತ ಸಂVೆ-: !ಐ 311 !ಓಎ\ 2024, J ಾಂಕ:03.12.2024
6. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಪತ ಸಂVೆ-: !ಐ 311 !ಓಎ\ 2024, J ಾಂಕ:04.12.2024
7. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಪತ ಸಂVೆ-: !ಐ 311 !ಒಎ\ 2024, J ಾಂಕ:05.12.2024
8. ಆಯುಕ'ರು ಕಬುD ಅOವೃJQ ಾಗೂ ಸಕ@gÉ ;Gೇ ಶಕರ ಪತ ಸಂVೆ-:
rJ¸ïPÉ/J¯ïfJ¯ï/53/2024-25, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.12.2024.
9. ಅಳಗ/ಾ0 CೕAೇಶ^ರ ಶುಗ# _ೆ` .., ಅಳಗ/ಾ0 Aಾಯaಾಗ: 2ಾಲೂ5ಕು, 6ೆಳ8ಾ 9:ೆ5 ಇವರ J ಾಂಕ:12.12.2024ರ ಮನ ."
The order passed thereto reads as follows:
"ಸ ಾ ರದ ಆGೇಶ ಸಂVೆ-: !ಐ 311 J¸ïಎ9ಎ\ 2024 ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04.01.2025 cೕ:ೆ ಪ ಾ'ವ ೆಯ.5 ವ !ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳ < ೆB:ೆಯ.5 ೕ ಬ ಾ ನಂದ ಾಗ ಾ8ಾj ಇಂಡ!"ೕ# ಈ ಘಟಕದ.5 ಕCDನ ರಸJಂದ 6ೆಲ5ವನುB ಉ2ಾIJ!ದ.5 ಶುಗ PÉÃ) (ಕಂfೊ ೕg) ಆಡ 1966 ಮತು' hದುiಪ0 ಆGೇಶಗಳ ಅನ^jಸುವFJಲ5.
ಆದAೆ, ೕ ಬ ಾ ನಂದ ಾಗ ಾಗ ಇಂಡ!"ೕ# ಮತು' ಆ J¹ÌÃ)*
ಬ+ೕವ,-ಯ¯ïì .., ಅಳಗ/ಾ0 Aಾಯ6ಾಗ 2ಾಲೂ5ಕು, 6ೆಳ8ಾ 9:ೆ5 ಈ ಘಟಕಗಳ.5
/ಾ-ಕೂ-k ¥Á) lಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಕ0c ದ9 ಯ ಕ>ಾ? ಸಕ@AೆಯನುB ಅಥ/ಾ ಕCDನ
ರಸವನುB Eಾ8ಾಂ ತರ Eಾ0 ಇ ಾBವFGೇ ಉತIನBಗಳನುB ಉ2ಾIJ!ದ.5 ಶುಗ ೇ)
(ಕಂfೊ ೕg) ಆಡ 1966 ಮತು' hನುB¥À0 ಆGೇಶಗಳ ಅನ^jಸುತ'/ೆ. ಆದi ಂದ, ಶುಗ
ೇ) (ಕಂfೊ ೕg) ಆಡ 1966ರ 6, 7, ಮತು' 8 ರ.5 ಮತು' ಶುಗ ೇ) (ಕಂfೊ ೕg)
(ಅcಂn cಂU) ಆಡ 2006d ಖಂಡ 6 J gÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹L
187 J¸ïfJ¥sï 2007, J ಾಂಕ:11.09.2007ರ.5 ಪ ದತ'/ಾದ ಅL ಾರವನುB ಚ:ಾj! ೕ
ಬ ಾ ನಂದ ಾಗ ಾಗ 'ಇಂಡ!"ೕ# ಮತು' ಆ!@) ಬ+ೕವ,-ಯg* .. ಅಳಗ/ಾ0
Aಾಯ6ಾp 2ಾಲೂ5ಕು, 6ೆಳ8ಾ 9:ೆ5 ಈ ಘಟಕಗಳ.5 /ಾ-ಕೂ-k _ಾ) lಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ
ಕ0c ದ ೆ ಯ ಕ>ಾ? ಸಕ@AೆಯನುB ಅಥ/ಾ ಕCDನ ರಸವನುB Eಾ8ಾಂ ತರ Eಾ0 ಇ ಾBವFGೇ ಉತIನBಗಳನುB ಉ2ಾIJಸುವFದನುB ತqಣJಂದ ಾ 8ೆ ಬರುವಂ2ೆ ;KೇJ! ಆGೇ !Gೆ.
9:ಾ5L ಾ ಗಳ , 6ೆಳ8ಾ 9:ೆ5 6ೆಳ8ಾ ಇವರು ಈ ಆGೇಶದ ಅನುKಾsನವನುB Vಾತ ಪ0! ೊಳtತಕ@ದುi 30 ಈ ಆGೇಶವನುB Eಾನ ಜವ ಕಬುD, ಅOವFJ ಮತು' ಸಕ@Aೆ ಾಗೂ ಕೃv Eಾರುಕfೆw ಸxವರು ;ೕ0ರುವ ಅನುyೕದ ೆ cೕAೆ8ೆ ೊರ0!Gೆ."
The 2nd respondent has now implemented orders dated 30-05-2023 and 21-10-2023. The respondents 4 and 5 who had challenged orders dated 30-05-2023 and 21-10-2023 have withdrawn the challenge. It is by now too well settled principle of law that withdrawal would be dismissal by consent. If they have got the challenge dismissed and the present challenge to the order which implements orders dated 30-05-2023 and 21-10-2023 can hardly be contended that respondents 4 and 5 still have a right to undo what is being implemented on what respondents 4 and 5 cautiously gave up.
14. What were the orders dated 30-05-2023 and 21-10-2023 are required to be considered? The order dated 30-05-2023, directed respondent No.4 to stop operating the power crusher and crushing sugarcane on its site and directed respondent No.4/jaggery industry, to stop procuring and purchasing sugarcane for crushing in the reserve area. The next order dated 21-10-2023 is also to the similar effect, it is a direction to the 4th and 5th 31 respondents to stop operation of sugar factory and crushing of sugarcane and immediately stop procuring/purchasing sugarcane for crushing the same for manufacture of ethanol. Respondents 4 and 5 have withdrawn the challenge to this order. Now the order dated 04-01-2025 implements these orders. To iterate, if respondents 4 and 5 have withdrawn the challenge to those orders consenting dismissal of the challenge to those orders, it needs no emphasis that they cannot challenge the order, which implements those orders.
15. Therefore, there is no merit in what respondents 4 and 5 have sought to contend in Writ Petition No.100295 of 2025.
Therefore, the said writ petition deserves to be rejected. The resultant action would be allowing of Writ Petition No.107316 of 2024 by issue of mandamus. It thus stands allowed directing unhindered, implementation of the order dated 04-01-2025, in the light of the challenge to it failing in the companion petition, Writ Petition No.100295 of 2025.
3216. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition No.107316 of 2024 is allowed with the above said declaration and Writ Petition No.100295 of 2025 stands dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.
__________SD/_________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA Bkp CT:MJ