Skip to content


Prakashrao K. Vaidya Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. Nos. 31304 to 31328 of 1981
Judge
Reported inILR1986KAR1606
ActsSugarcane (Control) Order, 1966; Karnataka Licensing of Crusher (Amendment) Order, 1980
AppellantPrakashrao K. Vaidya
RespondentState of Karnataka
Appellant AdvocateMahabaleshwar Gowda, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Udayashankar, HCGP
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....any other animal.;crusher means a crusher as defined in clause 2(a) of 1966 order and not a power crusher. licence to operate a power crusher or a crusher is issued in form no. i of 1980 order. column no 4 in form no. i requires that full description of the sugarcane crusher licensed for operation must be given; such as whether it is operated by animal, h.p., type and make, crushing capacity, whether owned or hired. therefore, it is not possible to hold that a crusher drawn by bullock or any other animal can be operated by a grower of sugarcane in the reserved area without obtaining a licence. he is eligible, and is required, to obtain licence in form no. i. thus, the definition of 'crusher' as contained in 1966 order and clause 3(a) of the 1980 order, and licence in form no. i, read..........are the growers of sugarcane. the lands in which they grow sugarcane are situated within the area reserved for the kampli co operative sugar factory. the contention of the petitioners is that under the sugarcane (control) order, 1966 and karnataka licensing of crusher (amendment) order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 1966 order and 1980 order respectively) for crushing sugarcane through the crushers drawn by bullock or any other animal, no licence is required to be obtained. therefore, the action of the respondents in seizing the parts of crushers and preventing the petitioners from crushing sugarcane through the crushers drawn by bullock or any other animal is unauthorised and is opposed to the provisions of 1966 order and 1980 order.4. on the contrary, it is contended by sri.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K. A. Swami, J.

1. In these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for issue of a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to forbear from interfering in the crushing operations being carried on by the petitioners by bullock drawn crashers and further to release the parts of crushers seized from them.

2. By an interim order dated 9-12-1981, the respondents were directed to return the seized parts of crushers. Accordingly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the seized parts of crushers have been returned to them. That interim order need not be disturbed. Accordingly, it is affirmed by this final order and it shall form part of this order.

3. The petitioners are the growers of sugarcane. The lands in which they grow sugarcane are situated within the area reserved for the Kampli Co operative Sugar Factory. The contention of the petitioners is that under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and Karnataka Licensing of Crusher (Amendment) Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 1966 Order and 1980 Order respectively) for crushing sugarcane through the crushers drawn by bullock or any other animal, no licence is required to be obtained. Therefore, the action of the respondents in seizing the parts of crushers and preventing the petitioners from crushing sugarcane through the crushers drawn by bullock or any other animal is unauthorised and is opposed to the provisions of 1966 Order and 1980 Order.

4. On the contrary, it is contended by Sri Udayashankar, Learned Government Pleader, that having regard to the definition of the word 'crusher' found in 1966 Order and the provisions contained in Clause 3(a) of the 1980 Order and the contents of Form No. I thereof, it is necessary for the petitioners to obtain a licence for crushing sugarcane by the crusher drawn by bullock or any other animal.

5. Sri Mahabaleshwar Gowda, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in K. Ramamurthy v. State of Mysore and ors., ILR (Karnataka) 1973, 681

6. Having regard to the aforesaid contentions, the following point arises for consideration in these petitions :

Whether it is necessary for operating crusher drawn by bullock or any other animal in the area reserved for sugar factory, to obtain licence ?

7. Clause 2(a) of the 1966 Order defines the expression 'crusher.' According to the definition, crusher means a crusher drawn by bullock or any other animal and engaged or ordinarily engaged in the crushing of sugarcane and includes any equipment for manufacturing gur, shakkar, gul, jaggary, rot or khandasari sugar. Reliance is also placed on Clause 7(a) of the 1966 Order which provides that the Central Government may by order direct that a crusher not belonging to a grower or a body of growers of sugarcane, or a power crusher or a khandasari unit shall not be worked except under and in accordance with a licence issued by the Central Government in this behalf. No doubt the aforesaid Clause 7(a) of the 1966 Order and Clause 3 of the Mysore Licensing of Crushers (Amendment) Order, 1971 are similar; but it is not possible to hold that the pronouncement of this Court in K. Rama Murthy's case, ILR (Karnataka) 1973, 681 governs the case on hand, because in addition to 1966 Order there is now 1980 Order passed by the State Government in exercise of its power conferred by Clauses 6, 7, and 9 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 read with G.S.R. 1127 dated 16th July, 1966 of the Government of India. 1980 Order specifically provides for obtaining the licence for operating a power crusher and also for operating a crusher. Clause 3 (a) of 1980 Order provides that 'no person other than a person who is actually growing sugarcane in the reserved area mentioned in Sub-clause (3) shall be eligible for obtaining a licence under this order. The crusher to be so licensed shall be established in or close by such a licensee's sugarcane area'. Thus Clause 3(a) makes it clear that only the grower of the sugarcane in the reserved area is entitled to obtain a licence for operating the crusher and such a crusher shall have to be installed in or close by his sugarcane area. Clause 3 provides that no person shall in any area reserved for any sugar factory and in area within the distance of 20 miles from the limits of such reserved area work a power crusher except in accordance with the conditions contained in the licence issued by the Deputy Commissioner, in Form No. I. We are not concerned in these petitions with the operation of power crushers. The claim of the petitioners is that in the area reserved for a sugar factory they are entitled to operate a crusher drawn by bullock or any other animal to crush sugarcane grown by them in the reserved area. Clause 3(a) read with Form No. I of 1980 Order, makes it clear that in the area reserved for a sugar factory, it is only that person who actually grows sugarcane is eligible for obtaining a licence in Form No. I to operate a crusher to crush-sugarcane. Here the crusher means a crusher as defined in Clause 2(a) of 1966 Order, and not a power crusher. Licence to operate a power crusher or a crusher is issued in Form No. I of 1980 Order. Column No 4 in Form No. I requires that full description of the sugarcane crusher licensed for operation must be given; such as whether it is operated by animal, H.P. Type and make, crushing capacity, whether owned or hired. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that a crusher drawn by bullock or any other animal can be operated by a grower of sugarcane in the reserved area without obtaining a licence. He is eligible and is required, to obtain licence in Form No. I. Thus, the definition of 'crusher' as contained in 1966 Order and Clause 3(a) of the 1980 Order, and Licence in Form No. I, read together make it clear that even for operating a crusher drawn by bullock or any other animal a licence is required to be obtained.

8. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are liable to fail. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. However as already pointed out it is subject to the confirmation of the order directing the release of the seized parts of the crushers.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //