Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1 2 3 4
Res pondent No. Name of the person/ firm and address Places of Bottling Areas to be Covered

3. Sea Shell Bottling Co., Dakshina Kannada District.

Bangalore Bangalore District.

4. T. V. Sarangadharan, Excise Contractor, Ashoknagar, Mandya.

Mandya Maddur and Mandya Taluks only in Mandya District.

5. H. S. Somashekar, B.V.K. Iyengar Road, Bangalore.

Mandya All the Taluks of Maadya except Maddur and Mandya Taluks.

V. Writ Petition No. 18 of 1985 was presented by Ugar Sugar Works Limited, Ugar-Khurd, Belgaum District. The petitioner in this Writ Petition is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of sugar at its factory situate at Ugar-Khurd in Belgaum District. It is stated to be one of the oldest sugar factories in the State having crushing capacity of 3500 M. Tonnes of sugarcane per day This company also established distillery in the year 1962. The company had established bottling plants investing a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and according to the petitioner the cost of the distillery and the bottling plants was in the order of 3 to 4 crores. It had also submitted its application pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Excise Commissioner dated 11th March, 1984. This petitioner challenged the legality of the impugned order on the ground that the exclusion from consideration of the applications of the petitioner and other distillery units and in particular the Mysore Sugar Company Limited, Mandya, which is a Government undertaking and who were eligible to undertake boilling work, according to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Excise Bottling of Liquors Rules, 1967, and that selection of persons who were ineligible for securing licence under the Rules, was capricious, arbitrary and based on collateral consideration. The petitioner also challenged the validity of the Karnataka Excise (Bottling of Liquor) (Amendment) Rules, 1984. framed after the impugned Government Order with the object of conferring eligibility on persons selected by the Government contrary to the rules.

13. Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that financially also the impugned decision was detrimental to the interests of the State as application for bottling arrack at Mandya made by the Mysore Sugar Company Limited - a State Government undertaking which had already installed a bottling unit and was eligible under Rule 3 of the Bottling Rules, was rejected and two private individuals, namely, respondents 4 and 5 were preferred. He submitted, by the decision, the State Government undertaking was denied the opportunity of earning profit and moreover the investment made by it on bottling unit was allowed to go a waste and the benefit was conferred on private individuals, which on the face of it was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

58. 

T.V. Sarangadharan & H.V. Puttaswamy No.    1196,     Ashok nagar, Mandya.
  
   
   

The applicants are arrack contractors in Karnataka for
  the last several years. They have bottling unit  in Mandya from  there
  they  are    supplying 
  bottled   arrack   to Mandya and Maddur taluks where they
  have taken up arrack contract.   They
  have a bottling licence also.   I
  found that they are financially sound and capable of handling   the  
  responsibility  of   bottling of arrack.
  
 
  
   
   

62.
  
   
   

Pramila Plastics (P) Ltd., Bangalore
  
   
   

The representative of this firm mentioned that he has a