- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had moved a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 36657 of 1994 against an inaction in respect of grant of licence for the year 1993-94 under the U. P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturers Licensing Order, 1967 which was disposed of on 11th January, 1995 and in connection whereof the petitioner had made the present application No. 429/74/95. Mr. V. K. Birla appearing for the Bareilly Sugar Mills who has been permitted to intervene at a subsequent stage submits that the said application has become infructuous. Mr. S. U. Khan counsel for the petitioner admits the position. Therefore, the said application is dismissed as infructuous assigned area adequate supplies of
(2.) MR. S. U. Khan, counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner had applied for licence for the year 1994-95 but the same was directed to be considered by the said judgment dated 11th January, 1995 by the appellate authority in the light of the observation made therein. Now the authority having rejected the prayer for grant of licence by an order dated 8th March, 1995, the petitioner has come up by means of this writ petition assailing the said order. In support of his contention, Mr. S. U. Khan contends that for the purpose of grant of licence, certain restrictions have been laid down in Para 3 of the said licensing order. Sub-para (4) of Para 3 of the said order is relevant for our purpose and it is quoted herein : " (4) An application for the grant or renewal of a licence shall be disposed by the Licensing Authority expeditiously and shall not be rejected except where the application has not been made by the prescribed date or on the prescribed form or is incom plete or is not accompanied by proof of the payment of the requisite fee or the Licensing Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest with a view to- (a) regulating the Khandsari Sugar Manufacturing Industry in the best interest of the industry ; or (b) avoiding uneconomic concentration of Khandsari units in any area ; or (c) ensuring in a reserved or sugarcane to a factory : Provided that while disposing of an application for grant or renewal of a licence, the Licensing Authority may also take into consideration- (a) the conduct of the applicant in carrying on any process of manufacture of Khandsari sugar prior to the date of application including the previous contravention, if any, or any provision of this Order, or conditions of the licence ; and (b) the total continuous period for which the applicant held licence under this order prior to the date of the applica tion ; and (c) the default, if any, made by the applicant in payment of the dues under the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961, (U. P. Act No. XXIV of 1961) : Provided further that no application for renewal of a license shall be rejected without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard unless such application is made after expiry of the prescribed date or is not accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment 01 the prescrib ed fee : Provided also that where an application for the grant or renewal of licence is not disposed of the commencement of the licensing year or within three months of the date on which the application is made, whenever is later, and in respect for licensing year 1982-83 by December 31, 1982. One of the condition to be considered was "ensuring in a reserved or assigned area adequate supplies of sugarcane to a factor". He further submits that the area, in which the petitioner is seeking his licence, in situated within 17 kms. for Bareilly Sugar Mills. The State Government has created a reserved area for supply of sugarcane to the said Bareilly Sugar Mills for a distance of 40 Kms. radius. Subsequently in the year 1993-94, a reserved area as has been drawn by Mr. Khan has been created within a radius of 25 Kms. within which no such licence can at all be granted. The said total prohibited area was replaced by 30 Kms. for the year 1994-95.
(3.) DRAWING my attention to the observations made in the said order dated 11th January, 1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 36657 of 1994 which is Annexure 10 to the writ petition. Mr. Khan submits that the said policy has been interpreted in the said judgment to he extent that the literal meaning of the policy is not to be accepted. It has looked behind the object of the formation of the policy which was recorded in the said judg ment. That the prime consideration would be to see whether the supply of sugarcane to the existing factory or sugar mill has not adversely effected by the grant of licence under the said Licensing Order. Therefore, the respondents, while considering the claim of the petitioner, were to reconsider in the light of the observation made therein. After the said order was passed, while considering the same, according to Mr. Khan, the respondents had overlooked or by passed the clear mandate in the form of observation made in the said judgment though had made a passing reference to the said order. In effect though the order has been sought to be passed with reasons but in effect, according to Mr. Khan those reasons are futile.;