- (1.) DISCRIMINATION or discretion in any administrative action is actionable through judicial review:
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the action of Government a public body, the citizen can claim that there has been breach of justice and is entitled to approach the Law Courts for reddressal. The court of justice, entrusted with administration of Justice has authority under Law to verify whether the State's action amounts to discrimination or it falls under the discretion. Decision and Decision making power are distinct: The decision making authority may be competent, but if the decision is illegal, controversial or unconstitutional it is open for challenge. Subordinate Legislation does not part take of the immunity from Judicial Control which applies to primary Legislation. Either Legislation or decision of the Government can be attacked if there is procedural ultra vires or substantive ultra vires. If it could be shown that the decision was being used for purpose other than those intended by the primary objectives of the parent act or the original scheme, such decision even if it is within the meaning of discretion, would be declared void. So would it if the powers are unreasonable. To struck down such policy the foremost ground is it must be manifestly unjust, involve the gratuitous interference with the light of those subject to it such as could find no justification in the minds of reasonable men, disclose bad faith, or be partial and unequal in its operation as between different classes or different categories. With this backdrop I shall proceed to deal with this case: M/s.Ponni Sugars (Erode)Limited, represented by its Vice-President(Finance) is the petitioner herein. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Food, Government of India, New Delhi is the first Respondent. The Chief Director (Sugar), Directorate of Sugar, Department of Sugar and Edible Oil, New Delhi is the second Respondent.
(3.) THE petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacture of sugar. One of its factory is established at Pallipalayam, Salem District, in the State of Tamilnadu. It is located in Other Recovery Area. The second Respondent is fixing annual ceiling for the petitioner and granted incentives for the sugar years on par with the sugar mills situated in High Recovery Area. Originally there was no discrimination between the mills located in High Recovery Area (HRA) and Other Recovery Area (ORA) till the new policy introduced in 1993. Through 1993 policy a restriction is imposed thereby 38,000 tonnes are fixed for the petitioner's Mill as against 46000 tonnes for HRA mills. The petitioner is challenging the same with a prayer to direct the Respondents to fix annual ceiling for the petitioner at 46,000 tonnes and to grant all incentives as is given under the previous piolicies on par with the sugar mills situated in (HRA). ;