Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Askins Biofuels Private Limited and M/s. Shri Bhramanandasagar Jaggery Industries, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.4, the Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar, Government of Karnataka. The impugned order granted a licence to Respondent No.5, M/s. Alagawadi Bireshwar Sugars Pvt. Ltd., for establishing a sugar unit. The petitioners contended that the order was non-speaking, passed without considering their objections, and contrary to the specific direction of this Court in an earlier order dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure-D), which had directed that the petitioners be heard before any decision was taken. The court noted that the impugned order did not contain any reasons and was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court held that the order was illegal and untenable, and accordingly quashed the same. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No.4 for fresh consideration, with a direction to pass a speaking order after hearing all parties concerned.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Speaking Order - The impugned order granting licence was a non-speaking order passed without considering objections and contrary to earlier court direction - Held that the order is illegal and liable to be quashed (Paras 1-5).
B) Sugar Industry - Licensing - Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 - The Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar passed an order without assigning reasons and without hearing the petitioners despite specific direction of the High Court - Held that the order is contrary to law and set aside (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by Respondent No.4 granting licence to Respondent No.5 without considering the objections of the petitioners and contrary to the earlier direction of this Court is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.4 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to Respondent No.4 for fresh consideration, with a direction to pass a speaking order after hearing all parties concerned.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Speaking order
- Writ of certiorari
- Non-speaking order
- Violation of court direction
- Licensing under Sugarcane (Control) Order
- 1966
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (01) 22
W.P. No.102856 of 2022 [GM-RES]
Shri Anirudha R.J. Nayak (for petitioners), Shri Goutam S.Bharadwaj for Shri Prashant F.Goudar (for C/R5), Shri M.B. Kanavi (for R1 to R3), Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, AGA (for R4)
M/s. Askins Biofuels Private Limited and M/s. Shri Bhramanandasagar Jaggery Industries
Union of India, Secretary, Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Chief Director (Sugar), Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar, M/s. Alagawadi Bireshwar Sugars Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order granting licence for sugar unit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.4 granting licence to Respondent No.5.
Filing Reason
The impugned order was non-speaking, passed without considering objections, and contrary to the earlier direction of this Court.
Previous Decisions
This Court had earlier passed an order dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure-D) directing that the petitioners be heard before any decision was taken.
Issues
Whether the impugned order granting licence is a non-speaking order?
Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice?
Whether the impugned order is contrary to the earlier direction of this Court?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the impugned order was non-speaking and passed without considering their objections.
Petitioners argued that the order was contrary to the specific direction of this Court dated 15.03.2022.
Respondents did not file any counter or appear to contest the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
An order passed without assigning reasons and in violation of the principles of natural justice, especially when contrary to a specific direction of the court, is illegal and liable to be quashed. The authority must pass a speaking order after hearing all parties.
Judgment Excerpts
The impugned order is a non-speaking order and is contrary to the specific direction of this Court.
The order is illegal and untenable in law.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.4. The court heard the matter and reserved orders, and later pronounced the judgment on 06.01.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966:
