Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA/1658/2010 2/ 2 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1658 of 2010 ========================================================= SHREE MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA THRO.SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PRAVIN P PANCHAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, MR PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 20/12/2010 ORAL ORDER
was already admitted by order dated 27.4.2010. Ad-interim relief
permitting the petitioner society to sell sugar in open market on
certain conditions was also granted. The petition is today taken up
for confirmation/vacating of said interim relief.
for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner co-operative
society is facing serious financial crunch since on account of the
restrictions imposed by the Union of India, it is unable to sell its
sugar in open market. He further submitted that such restriction is
unreasonable and is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution.
the other hand, counsel for Union of India pointed out that other
High Courts have upheld the Government of India’s policy in this
regard. Relying on the affidavit in reply dated 14th
June 2010 filed on behalf of the Union of India, he submitted that
such restrictions are imposed in larger public interest to control
the sugar prices and to ensure (i) that the consumer gets adequate
sugar throughout the year at a fair price; (ii) that the crores of
cane growers who provide sugarcane which is the basic raw material
for the sugar industry, receive a fair price; and (iii) that the
sugar producer gets a reasonably fair return from the sale of sugar.
that other sugar cooperatives outside the State are subjected to
same restrictions as also considering that except the petitioner,
other cooperatives in the State are also subjected to similar
restrictions, I do not find that the interim protection granted in
favour of the petitioner should be extended which would give the
petitioner an undue advantage over other similarly situated sugar
producers. Hence interim relief is vacated. The petition be placed
for final hearing on 15th February 2011.