SHABIHUL HASNAIN,J. - (1.) The questions of facts and law raised in these writ petitions being substantially common, all the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. It is not necessary to delve into facts of each case separately and it would be sufficient to refer to the facts and pleadings in Civil Misc (MB) Writ Petition No. 2679 of 2008 in Mawana Sugars Limited Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others for deciding this bunch of writ petitions.
(2.) In order to appreciate the gamut of submissions advanced, it is imperative to extract the crucial and necessary facts leading to the present controversy.
(3.) The State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide G.O. No. 1631(1)SC/18-2-2004-57/2004dated 24th August 2004 declared a Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 (the Policy) to attract investments by private entrepreneurs to establish new sugar mills in the State to ensure better utilization of sugar cane produced in the State and also to provide direct employment to at least 1000 persons by each of the investor. To attract such fresh investments, the State Government promised to provide variousbenefits in theformof exemptions/remissions in taxes, reimbursements of duties and cash subsidy etc. for varying periods depending upon the level of investment made.;