9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 692 - HC - Indian LawsApplication for interim relief - Validity of Order passed by Excise authority - Violation of provisions of rules and regulations under Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam - Prospective effect or retrospective effect - Review of own previous judgment - Held that - earlier reservation for 2012-13 of 20% of the product of molasses was to continue till a new policy was promulgated, which in the present case has been done on 14.8.2014. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the decision in the case of M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited (2011 (3) TMI 1526 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) which has been relied upon and is Annexure-9 to the writ petition, has been considered by a coordinate Bench in the other case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Limited Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (4) TMI 611 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . So far as the issue of the effect of the judgment in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries (2015 (4) TMI 611 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) is concerned, we are of the opinion that we cannot review the said judgment, and it is a precedent of binding nature so long it is not set aside. Further even if the judgment does not lay down the law correctly, the same can only be assailed after the State is given an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and the matter is heard. So far as the interim order passed by the Apex Court is concerned, the same does not come to the aid of the petitioner at this stage.
Issues:
Challenge to the correctness of the order passed by respondent No.1 on 14.8.2014 and subsequent order by Excise Commissioner regarding reservation of molasses. Interpretation of the law and rules under Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964. Applicability of judgments in M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited case and Income-tax Officer ALLEPPY Vs. M.C. Ponnoose case. Dispute over the reservation percentage and ratio. Consideration of the judgment in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries case and its impact on the present case. Analysis: The petition challenges the orders related to the reservation of molasses by respondent No.1 and the Excise Commissioner. The petitioner's counsel argues that the orders are incorrect and should not have retrospective effect. He relies on the judgment in the M/s Triveni Engineering case and the Income-tax Officer ALLEPPY Vs. M.C. Ponnoose case to support his contention that executive fiat cannot override existing rules. The counsel also points out that the reservation percentage was to continue until a new policy was promulgated, which was done on 14.8.2014. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel argues that the judgment in the M/s Triveni Engineering case has been considered in a previous case and may not be applicable. The petitioner's counsel mentions a Special Leave Petition filed against the previous judgment, indicating ongoing legal proceedings. Regarding the impact of the judgment in the Dwarikesh Sugar Industries case, the court holds that the judgment stands as a binding precedent unless set aside. The court emphasizes that even if the judgment is perceived as incorrect, it can only be challenged after the State files a counter-affidavit and a proper hearing takes place. The court declines to grant interim relief at this stage, noting that the impugned order is from August 2014. The Standing Counsel is given time to file a counter affidavit, and the case is listed for further hearing on a specified date. The petitioner is allowed to file a fresh application for any future orders needed. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the legal challenges raised by the petitioner regarding the reservation of molasses and the applicability of previous judgments. It underscores the importance of legal procedures and the binding nature of precedents until overturned. The court's decision reflects a cautious approach, emphasizing the need for a thorough legal process before any changes can be made to existing orders.
|
