1968 (11) TMI 96 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Cane Commissioner.
2. Abdication of statutory functions.
3. Nature of the proceeding (quasi-judicial or administrative).
4. Compliance with natural justice.
5. Allegations of mala fide actions.
6. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Cane Commissioner:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Cane Commissioner to pass the orders excluding 99 villages from the reserved area. The High Court concluded that the Cane Commissioner had the power to make, modify, or cancel reservations under Clause 6 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966, in view of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.

2. Abdication of Statutory Functions:
The appellant argued that the Cane Commissioner had abdicated his statutory functions by merely implementing the directions of the Chief Minister. The High Court rejected this contention, but the Supreme Court found that the Cane Commissioner acted as the mouthpiece of the Chief Minister and did not exercise his statutory discretion independently. The Supreme Court held that the orders were invalid as they were effectively made by an authority not recognized under Clause 6 read with Clause 11 of the Order.

3. Nature of the Proceeding:
The High Court considered the proceeding before the Cane Commissioner as administrative. However, the Supreme Court determined that the proceeding was quasi-judicial because it involved a dispute (lis) between the appellant and the 5th respondent, requiring objective criteria for resolution. The modification of the reservation had serious repercussions on the appellant's mill, affecting its interests adversely.

4. Compliance with Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the impugned orders were made without affording a reasonable opportunity to represent its case. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was not given an opportunity to respond to the representations made by the 5th respondent or the proposal to split the reserved area. The Court held that the principles of natural justice were contravened as the appellant was not heard on the crucial issue of modifying the reservation.

5. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions:
The High Court rejected the plea of mala fide actions. The Supreme Court did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the orders were already found invalid on other grounds.

6. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The High Court found no violation of Article 14. The Supreme Court did not delve into this issue extensively, having already invalidated the orders on the grounds of abdication of statutory functions and non-compliance with natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned orders. It held that the orders were invalid as they were made by the Chief Minister, not the Cane Commissioner, and the proceeding was quasi-judicial, requiring adherence to the principles of natural justice. The State of Bihar and the 5th respondent were ordered to pay the costs of the appellant in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.