- (1.) THIS petition was filed challenging the order dated 3-4-1987 passed by the State Government withdrawing the exemption granted to four sugar mills including that run by the petitioner-situate at Rampur, Biswan (Sitapur), Amroha (Moradabad) and Baheri (Bareilly) with respect to octroi on the import of sugarcane within the local limits of Municipal Board of these districts. The short ground on which the petition was initially filed was that sugar mills situate throughout the State were enjoying the exemption granted by the State Government by its order dated 3-6-1982 while these four sugar mills were picked up and arbitrarily denied that benefit In short, the plea is that there is a patent violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Subsequently, during the pendency of the petition, another G. O. dated 13-7-1987 was issued by the Government this time withdrawing exemption with respect to all the sugar mills of the State presumably to meet the challenge to the G. O. dated 3-4-1987 on the grounds of the unwarranted discrimination.
(2.) WITH reference to the G. O. dated 13-7-1987 the contention of the learned counsel is that the vice of discrimination against the petitioner continues notwithstanding the general withdrawal of the exemption by the notification dated 13-7-1987 inasmuch as in respect of the four sugar mills covered by the G. O. dated 3-4-1987, the exemption stood withdrawn from an earlier date, i.e. 3-4-1987 while the remaining sugar mills of the State continued to enjoy the exemption right up to 13-7-1987. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel representing the respondent Municipal Board we are clearly of the opinion that the contention is right. It is true that the original challenge to the G. O. dated 3-4-1987 does not survive after the enforcement of the G. O. dated 13-7-1987 in that the withdrawal of the exemption under the latter G. O. applied to all the sugar mills of the State without any distinction. But there does not appear to be any rational basis why the petitioner sugar mills should have been deprived of the exemption between 3-4-1987 and 13-7-1987 during which the other sugar mills similarly situate continued to enjoy the exemption granted to all the sugar mills under the G. O. dated 3-4-1982. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Board no attempt has been made to justify the obvious discrimination in selecting these four sugar mills (including the petitioner's) for the deprivation of the exemption granted to all the remaining sugar mills throughout the State. At any rate, we can discern no principle or basis for picking these four sugar mills out of the rest under the G. O. dated 3-4-1987.
(3.) THE fact that the withdrawal of the exemption under the G. O. dated 13-7-1987 applies equally to all the sugar mills does not wipe out the discrimination meted out to the petitioner and other three sugar mills by keeping them deprived of the exemption from a prior dated, i. e. 3-4-1987. So far as the State of U. P. is concerned though it was made a party, it has not filed any counter affidavit though ten days time for the same was granted by the Court on 1-5-1987. We, therefore, see no justification for granting further time for counter affidavit prayed for by the learned Standing Counsel. We think that on the facts which a're not in dispute the discrimination is patent and demonstrable. The petitioner was entitled to be treated equally with the other sugar mills in the matter of grant of exemption or withdrawal thereof.;