Summary
Shivashakti’s sugar factory was permitted to continue operating. On the relevant facts, the nearby closed and liquidating mill was not an existing factory attracting the distance restriction. Official permissions, substantial investment, employment, power generation and cane availability also justified relief. Fourteen villages were to be restored to the respondent’s allocation.
Issues
- Whether the nearby non-operational mill attracted the distance restriction on these facts.
- Whether the operating factory should continue subject to protective conditions.
Provisions considered
- Clause 6A and Explanation 1, Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966The nearby mill’s prolonged non-operation and liquidation meant it did not count as an existing factory when the appellant’s IEM was acknowledged. (¶¶ 24, 26–33)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaEquitable relief was considered appropriate even assuming technical violation, with conditions balancing competing interests. (¶ 34–41)
Held
- The neighbouring mill had been non-operational for years, was under liquidation and had previously given no objection. Its subsequent revival did not alter the relevant position when the appellant’s IEM was acknowledged. The distance requirement was not attracted in these circumstances. (¶ 27–33)
- The Court resolved the case through the existing-factory issue and continued-operation relief, without deciding the remaining challenges concerning retrospectivity, effective steps and extension validity. (¶¶ 23, 34)
- Official approvals and extensions, substantial investment and loans, employment, power generation and ample cane supply supported continued operation. Economic consequences mattered within legal parameters and did not authorise ignoring statutory provisions. (¶ 34–40)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; High Court directions set aside and factory operation permitted, conditional on taking fourteen originally respondent-assigned villages from the appellant and reallocating them to the respondent.