Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and restraining the Appellants from interfering with the Respondents working his power crusher for manufacturing Gur even though he has no licence for it.
(2.) THE Respondents filed a writ petition to challenge the order of the Assistant Sugar Cane Commissioner refusing to grant a licence to the Respondents under the U.P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturing Licensing Order, 1967. This, order was challenged principally on the ground that the Respondents were existing licence holders. They had applied for renewal of their licence. Such an application for renewal of licence could be refused only after affording a reasonable opportunity. No such opportunity was ever afforded to the Respondents and as such the order was void. The learned Single Judge repelled this submission. He held that it was doubtful whether the Respondents held a licence previously and as such it cannot be said that the Respondents were entitled to any hearing before rejection of their application The order of the Assistant Sugar Cane Commissioner cannot, therefore, be challenged on that ground.
(3.) BEFORE us, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents sought to challenge the order of refusal on an additional ground. It was urged that the finding given in the order of refusal is that the granting of the licence to the Respondents for working a power crusher to produce Gur will result in the utilisation of reserved sugar -cane and will adversely affect the supply of the sugarcane to the Upper India Sugar Mills, Khatauli within whose reserved area the place where the Respondents reside and wanted to work their power crusher is situate. In the order of refusal it was also stated that the village where the power crusher was intended to work is within 10 miles of the reserved area of the aforesaid mills. The issuance of a new licence will result in the utilisation of the reserved sugarcane and that it was not in public interest to grant a new licence to the Respondents. This finding is sought to be challenged on the allegations contained in paragraphs 4 and 21 of the writ petition. In paragraph 4 emphasis was laid by the learned Counsel on the allegation that last year sugarcane crop of an area of 30 bighas was left unutilised have no relevance to the situation, as obtaining in the current year. There are no allegations about the situation of production of sugarcane with reference to this Mill in the current year or about the capacity of the mill to crush the sugarcane of the reserved area. In order to show that the production was much more than the buying or crushing capacity of the Mills. The allegation in paragraph 21 of the writ petition is that the Respondents intended to crush their own sugar cane crop and that no purchase from or outside the reserved area was made by the Respondents. Thus fact too has no material bearing on the finding recorded by the Assistant Sugarcane Commissioner in the impugned order. We are unable to hold that the Impugned order suffers from any manifest error of law.;