Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3853 (ALL)

Pawan Kumar v. State of U. P.

2016-11-30

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT In these proceedings, the petitioners have challenged (i) the requirement of a license fee and security in Rules 87 and 89 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulations of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 as being ultra vires the provisions of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953; and (ii) a notification dated 13 March 2008 increasing the security deposit from Rs.100/- to Rs.20,000/- and the license fee from Rs.1.00 to Rs.500/-. The petitioners have annexed several orders at Annexure-2 where, in similar petitions, the enhancement has been stayed. Reference in that regard may be made to the orders in Sudhir Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 54799 of 2011), Kailash Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another (Writ-C No. 55304 of 2011), Naresh Chandra Sharma and 51 others vs. State of U.P. and two others (Writ-C No. 62413 of 2013), Sandeep Mishra and 29 others vs. State of U.P. and another (Writ-C No. 68857 of 2013) and Jitendra Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 49111 of 2012). However, at the hearing of this petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied on a final order which was passed on 10 January 2012 by a Division Bench of this Court in Shobhit Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 1450 of 2012). The order passed by the Division Bench on 10 January 2012 reads as follows: "The petitioners' grievance is with regard to abrupt enhancement of the respective licence fee from Rs. 01/- to Rs. 500/- and security money from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 20,000/-, which, according to them, are highly excessive and without any reason whatsoever. Learned standing counsel for the State has contended that since challenge has been thrown to the notification issued by the Governor of State, there is hardly any scope of consideration of the grievance of the petitioners. We are of the view that although a notification has been issued by the Governor yet it is always open to the Government to re-think on the basis of the justifiable cause and refer the matter for further notification, therefore, the State cannot be debarred from considering the case. We are of the view that although a notification has been issued by the Governor yet it is always open to the Government to re-think on the basis of the justifiable cause and refer the matter for further notification, therefore, the State cannot be debarred from considering the case. Hence, in disposing of the writ petition, we direct the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Appropriate Authority within a period of one week from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order who will take a decision preferably within a period of one month thereafter upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order thereon. For the purpose of effective adjudication a copy of the writ petition along with its annexures can also be treated as part and parcel of the representation. It is further provided that no further effect of the enhancement will be given till the decision is taken. he writ petition is, thus, disposed of at the stage of admission. No order is passed as to costs." Essentially, by the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, liberty was granted to the petitioners to submit a representation to the State Government, and it was directed that until the representation was disposed of, the enhancement would not be given effect to. At the hearing of the present petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that he would rest content if an order in terms of the order which was passed on 10 January 2012 is passed in this petition. We, accordingly, direct that the petitioners shall submit a representation to the first respondent. In the event, the petitioners do so within a period of one month from the date of this order, the first respondent shall take a considered view on the representation no later than within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. In terms of the order dated 10 January 2012 passed by the Division Bench (and since similar interim orders have been passed in pending petitions), we direct that, for a period of four months from today, the enhancement fee shall not be insisted upon insofar as the petitioners before the Court are concerned. In terms of the order dated 10 January 2012 passed by the Division Bench (and since similar interim orders have been passed in pending petitions), we direct that, for a period of four months from today, the enhancement fee shall not be insisted upon insofar as the petitioners before the Court are concerned. However, once a decision is taken by the State Government, the petitioners shall necessarily abide by the result of the decision subject to their right to move appropriate proceedings in that regard. We also clarify that in the event, the pending writ petitions before this Court are decided on merits, the petitioners would be governed by the decisions thereon. We have issued the above directions, reserving a time schedule for a decision by the State Government since it appears that as a result of the inaction on the part of the State Government to take a final decision one way or the other, a number of writ petitions on the same subject are being filed before this Court. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.