WRIT PETITION NO.9189 of 2010

Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8th October 2010 passed by the Secretary, Government of India, Department of Food and Public Distribution, which decided questions referred by the High Court regarding the validity of amendments to an Industrial Entrepreneurs Memorandum (IEM) for a private sugar factory.

Seeking setting aside of the Secretary's order and consequential reliefs.

The petitioners, existing sugar factories, challenged amendments to an IEM of a competitor, alleging that the amendments were invalid due to incorrect initial location and violation of the minimum distance rule under Press Note No.12.

Earlier, the High Court had directed maintenance of status quo; then by order dated 29 July 2008, referred issues to the Joint Secretary; the Joint Secretary's order was set aside, and the High Court by consent order dated 5 November 2009 referred specific questions to the Secretary, leading to the impugned order.

A) Whether the submission of IEM of Mahavir Sugar Works on 10 October 1998 is invalid in law because of admitted wrong mentioning of the location in that IEM? B) Whether the application made by Mahavir Sugar Works dated 10 January 2006 for amendment in IEM, for substitution of the name of Jaywant Sugars Ltd. in place of Mahavir Sugar Works was allowed by the authorities correctly and legally? C) Whether the application dated 16 March 2006 made by Jaywant Sugars Ltd. for modification in the IEM was allowed by the authorities in accordance with law? D) Whether the petitioners Khandoba Prasanna Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. have locus standi to object to the application dated 10 January 2006 submitted by Mahavir Sugar Works and application dated 16 March 2006 submitted by Jaywant Sugars Ltd.? E) In case the authority comes to the conclusion that the modification and substitution pursuant to the applications dated 10 January 2006 and 16 March 2006 are validly allowed, whether that modification and assignment will operate prospectively from the date of grant or with retrospective effect? F) (Incomplete in the provided text)

1. IEM No.2034-SIA/IMO/1998 was issued on 12 October 1998 in the name of Mahavir Sugar Works (proprietorship of Sudesh Shah) for a sugar factory at Dhavadwadi, Taluka Patan, district Satara. 2. The IEM was later amended on 12 January 2006 to change the name to Jaywant Sugars Limited, and on 20 March 2006 to change the location taluka from Patan to Karad. 3. The petitioners Khandoba and Sahyadri challenged the amendments before the High Court, which on 16 August 2007 ordered status quo. 4. By order dated 29 July 2008, the High Court directed the Joint Secretary, DIPP to decide certain issues. 5. The Joint Secretary passed order on 17 December 2008 upholding the amendments. 6. The petitioners challenged the Joint Secretary's order in WP Nos.1172 and 1518 of 2009. 7. By consent order dated 5 November 2009, the High Court set aside the Joint Secretary's order and referred six questions to the Secretary, Department of Food and Public Distribution. 8. The Secretary passed the impugned order on 8 October 2010. 9. The present writ petitions were filed against that order.

• Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
• Companies Act, 1956: