- (1.) OM Prakash, J. The petitioner public limited Company- incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, owns a sugar factory, which is engaged in the manufacture of crystal sugar by vacum pan process. Indubitably, molasses is a by-product of the said sugar factory.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that on 3rd June, 1995, molasses to the extent of 12,455. 65 quintals stood destroyed due to auto combustion in tank No. 2. An intimation to that effect is said to have been given to the authorities concerned. THEreupon, the District Excise Officer sent a communication dated 7-6-1995 follow ing an order dated 26-5-1995 of the Controller (Annexure "6" to the writ petition) that any short-fall of 65% molasses of total estimated production, which is reserved for being supplied to the distilleries and for industrial development under the orders of the Controller, will be made good from the remaining 35% molasses, left to the petitioner for free sale. Aggrieved, the petitioner seeks quashing of the Controller's order dated 26-5-1995 and of the consequential communication dated 7-6-1995 (Annexure "6" to the writ petition ). The District Excise Officer, respondent No. 3, filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of all the respondents stating that auto combustion in tank No. 2 was caused as a result of negligence of the petitioner.
(3.) AS the event of auto combustion was frequently reported by the sugar fac tories in the past, the Controller issued the impugned order dated 26-5-1995 (An nexure "6" to the writ petition) directing the authorities that to maintain 65% supply reserved for distilleries and industrial development, deficiency arising on account of auto combustion be made good from the molasses meant for free sale, and that in compliance with the said order impugned order dated 7-6-1995 (Annexure "6" to the writ petition) was issued to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said orders (Annexure "6" to the writ petition) mainly on the ground that under Section 11 (1) of the UP. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') the petitioner can only be punished for contravention of any provisions of the Act or the rules or orders made or the direction issued thereunder and there is no provision under the Act enabling the Controller to pass any order to set off the molasses meant for free sale against the short-fall of reserved supplies caused by auto combus tion. Section 11 (1) falling under Chapter IV of the Act no doubt makes contraven tion of any provision of the Act or the rules or orders or the directions issued thereunder, punishable, but the question for consideration is whether a person whosoever contravenes the provisions of the Act or the rules can only be punished for the offence committed under Section 11 (1) and whether the Controller is legally competent to pass an order like the impugned order dated 26-5-1995.;