# Sarva Krishna Ajay Kumar Agrawal v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 628
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-05-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1970 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sarva-krishna-ajay-kumar-agrawal-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39895
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Section 5 and 7-A-22 supply of molassesperson
applying
for
molasses-
not
requiring bonafidely- not entitled- dealer
can
not
be
termed
as
bonafiedly
requiring person for distilleries or use of
Industrial
establishment-
application
rightly rejected.

Held- Para 17

Rules clearly spells out that the allottee
of the molasses has to be a person using
the molasses for his distillery or for his
any other industrial development. Thus
the interpretation of Section 7-A as
submitted
by
the
counsel
for
the
petitioner cannot be accepted. It is held
that
the
Section
7-A
contemplates
application by a person who requires the
molasses for his distillery or for his
industrial development.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
628
sub-section (2) of Section 1 of U.P. Act
No. 1 of 1993 appointed 7.8.1993 as the
date on which the said Act except Section
13 shall come into force. The result of this
notification is that although Section 18 is
still continuing. Section 16 is not subject
to the provisions of Section 18 of the
Principal Act. Thus any appointment
made under section 18 is void under Subsection (2) of Section 16 of the Act. Thus
no adhoc appointment can now be made
under Section 18 of the Act which
although omitted by U.P. Act No. 1 of
1993 but still continuing."

15. In view of the above facts it is
clear that the deletion of Section 18 as
amended with effect from 14.7.1992 is of
no avail to the petitioner. The amended
provision of Section 18 enforced with
effect from 14.7.1992 was fully operative
during which the petitioner claims adhoc
appointment.
Petitioner's
adhoc
appointment having not been made in
accordance
with
Section
18,
the
appointment is void and has rightly been
not approved by the District Inspector of
Schools.

16. In view of the foregoing
discussions we do not find any merit in
any of the submissions raised by the
counsel for the appellant. The learned
Single Judge has rightly held that the
Committee of Management had no
jurisdiction to make selection and appoint
petitioner as adhoc lecturer.

17. We do not find any merit in the
Special Appeal and the same is dismissed
accordingly. No order as to cost.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
DATED: ALLAHABAD

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1970 of 2002

Sarva Krishna Ajay Kumar Agrawal

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Tandon

Counsel for the Respondents:
Chandra Shekhar Singh, S.C.

U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964-
Section 5 and 7-A-22 supply of molassesperson
applying
for
molasses-
not
requiring bonafidely- not entitled- dealer
can
not
be
termed
as
bonafiedly
requiring person for distilleries or use of
Industrial
establishment-
application
rightly rejected.

Held- Para 17

Rules clearly spells out that the allottee
of the molasses has to be a person using
the molasses for his distillery or for his
any other industrial development. Thus
the interpretation of Section 7-A as
submitted
by
the
counsel
for
the
petitioner cannot be accepted. It is held
that
the
Section
7-A
contemplates
application by a person who requires the
molasses for his distillery or for his
industrial development.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arun Tandon counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Shekhar
Singh learned standing counsel appearing
for the State respondents.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sarva Krishna Ajay Kumar Agrawal V. State of U.P. and another
629

2. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner praying for quashing of
the orders 27th May, 2002 passed by the
Controller
of
Molasses/Excise
Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad. A further
prayer has been made commanding the
respondents to reconsider the application
of the petitioner afresh for grant of
permission under Section 7 A of the Uttar
Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam
1964.

Brief facts giving rise to this writ
petition are as follows:

3. Petitioner is a firm registered
under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Petitioner
claimed to be dealer/handling agent of
molasses. Petitioner claims that earlier by
the order of Controller molasses he was
allotted different quantity of molasses.
Petitioner further claims that he has also
been granted "No objection" certificate
for export of molasses out of the State.
Petitioner filed an application under
Section 7-A of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran
Adhiniyam, 1964 praying that he be
granted permission for 1,00,000 quintals
of molasses. He has stated in his
application that the said molasses will be
sold to the distilleries and the industrial
establishment of the State of Uttar
Pradesh and out side the State of Uttar
Pradesh. The petitioner had also filed a
writ petition No.1751 of 2002 after filing
the aforesaid application. When the writ
petition came for hearing on 15.5.2002
learned counsel standing counsel made
statement that the order has already been
passed on the application of the petitioner
which shall be communicated. The writ
petition was dismissed with liberty to the
petitioner to challenge the said order in
appropriate
proceedings.
After
the
aforesaid order petitioner was issued letter
dated 27.5.2002 intimating that that his
application under Section 7-A has been
rejected. In the order dated 27.5.2002 it
has been stated that under Section 7-A of
the Act only such person can give an
application who required molasses for its
distilleries or for industrial development.
Order further state that the application
given by the petitioner does not come
under Section 7-A since the petitioner has
not claimed that he required for his own
distillery or for industrial development.
The said order dated 27.5.2002 has been
challenged in this writ petition.

4. Sri Arun Tandon counsel for the
petitioner challenging the aforesaid order
dated
27.5.2002
made
following
submissions:-

1.
Under section 7-A there is no
prohibition in granting an application of a
person who is a dealer and requires the
molasses for it being sold for purposes of
industrial development. The respondents
have misinterpreted Section 7-A and has
illegally rejected the application.

2.
The petitioner and other similarly
situated dealers in earlier years were
granted permission, reference has been
made to the orders of the Controller dated
11.4.1989, 20.6.1989 annexures 11 and 12
to the writ petition.

3. State
of
Uttar
Pradesh
by
Government order has lifted control on
price and distribution of molasses hence
no restriction can be imposed in free sale
of molasses.

5. Learned standing counsel refuting
the submissions of the counsel for the
petitioner supported the order dated
27.5.2002 and contended that under
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
630
Section 7-A the petitioner is not eligible
for grant of any permission for molasses.
It was contended that under Section 7-A
no dealer or handling agent can be
granted permission to lift the Molasses.
The standing counsel contended that only
that person can apply who require
molasses for his distillery or for any
purpose of industrial development. It was
contended that since the petitioner do not
require the molasses for his distillery or
for any purpose of industrial development
by
himself,
he
cannot
make
an
application.

6. We have heard counsel for the
parties and perused the record. The main
issue which has arisen in this writ petition
is regarding true scope and meaning of
Section 7-A of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera
Niyantran
Adhiniyam,
1964.
For
considering the submission raised by the
counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to
examine the provisions of Section 7-A
and other provisions of the Act and the
Rules to find out the real object and scope
of the Act and the Rules. Uttar Pradesh
Sheera
Niyantran
Adhiniyam,
1964
(hereinafter called as the Act, 1964) was
enacted to provide in public interest for
the control of storage, gradation and price
of molasses produced by Sugar Factories
in Uttar Pradesh and the regulation of
supply and distribution thereof. Section
2(d) of the Act defines molasses which
means the heavy, dark coloured viscous
liquid produced in the final stage of
manufacture of sugar by vacuum pan,
from sugarcance or gur, when the liquid
ask such or in any form or admixture
contains
sugar.
Section
5
provides
preservation of molasses by the occupier
of sugar factory. Section 7-A of the Act
deals
with
manner
and
procedure
regarding
Application
for
molasses.
Section 7-A is quoted below:-

"7-A Application for molasses________
(1) Any person who requires molasses for
his distillery or for any purpose of
industrial development may apply in the
prescribed manner to the Controller
specifying the purpose for which it is
required.

(2) On receipt of an application under
sub-section (1) and after making such
inquiries in the matter as he may think fit,
the Controller may make an order Section
8.

(3) In disposing of an application under
sub-section (1) the Controller shall
consider:---
(a) the general availability of molasses;
(b) various requirements of molasses;
(c) the
better
utilization
to
which
molasses may be put in the public
interest;
(d) the extent to which the requirements
of the applicant are genuine;
(e) reasonable likelihood or otherwise of
the molasses that may be obtained by the
applicant being diverted to purposes
other
than
those
specified
in
the
application and where the application is
rejected in whole or in part, he shall
record reasons therefore)

(4) The occupier of a sugar factory shall
be liable to pay to the State Government
in the manner prescribed, administrative
charges at such rate not exceeding five
rupees
per
quintal
as
the
State
Government from time to time notify, on
the molasses sold or supplied by him.

(5) The occupier shall be entitled to
receive from the person to whom the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sarva Krishna Ajay Kumar Agrawal V. State of U.P. and another
631
molasses is sold or supplied an amount
equivalent
to
the
amount
of
such
administrative charges, in addition to the
price of molasses."

7. Section 8 of the Act deals with
sale and supply of molasses. Under
section 8 the Controller of molasses
require the occupier of sugar factory to
sell and supply in the prescribed manner
such quantity of molasses to such person
as may be specified in the order. Section 8
of the Act is quoted as below:-

"8. Sale and supply of molasses:_____
(1) The Controller (with the prior
approval of the State Government by
order require) may the occupier or any
sugar factory to (sell or supply) in the
prescribed manner such quantity of
molasses to such person, as may be
specified in the order, and the occupier
shall,
notwithstanding
any
contract,
comply with the order:-

(a) shall require supply to be made only
to a person who required it for his
distillery or for any purpose of industrial
development:
(aa) may require the person referred to
in clause (a) to utilize the molasses
supplied to him under an order made
under this section for the purpose
specified in the application made by him
under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A and
to observe all such restrictions and
conditions as may be prescribed.

(b) may be for the entire quantity of
molasses in stock or to be produced
during the year or for any portion
thereof; but the proportion of molasses to
be supplied from each sugar factory to its
estimated total produce of molasses
during the year shall be the same
throughout the State save where, in the
opinion of the Controller, a varation is
necessitated by any of the following
factors;

(i) the requirements of distilleries within
the area in which molasses may be
transported from the sugar factory at a
reasonable cost;
(ii) the requirements for other purposes
of industrial development within such
area; and
(iii) the availability of transport facilities
in the area.

(3) The Controller may make such
modifications in the order sub-section (1)
as may be necessary to correct any error
or omission or to meet a subsequent
change in any of the factors mentioned in
Clause (b) of sub-section (2)."

8. Section 10 deals with maximum
prices of molasses. Section 11 and 12 deal
with offences and penalties. Section 17 of
the Act provides for maintenance of
accounts and furnishing of returns etc. by
sugar factory and other persons to whom
molasses is supplied. Section 17 is quoted
below:-

"17. Maintnance of accounts and
furnishing of returns, etc.;_________
Every occupier of a sugar factory and
every person to whom molasses is
supplied by such occupier shall be
bound___________

(a) to maintain such registers, records,
instruments and reagents as may be
prescribed;

(b) to furnish all such information and
returns relating to the production and
disposal of molasses in such manner, to
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
632
such persons and by such dates as may by
order, be prescribed by the Controller;

(c) to produce, on demand by an Excise
Officer not below the rank of a SubInspector (Excise), registers, records,
documents, instruments and chemical
reagents which he is required to maintain
under the provisions of this Act or the
rules or orders made there under."

9. Rules have been framed namely,
Uttar
Pradesh
Sheera
Niyantran
Niyamavali, 1974 (hereinafter to be
referred as "Rules, 1974"). Chapter II of
the Rules deals with preservation of
molasses. Chapter III deals with supply
and distribution. Rule 12 provides that the
occupier of every sugar factory shall
submit to the Controller by August 31st
each molasses year a statement in Form
M.F.9 specifying an approximate estimate
of the quantity of molasses to be produced
in a sugar factory during the molasses
year. Rule 13 deals with estimate of
requirement of molasses for distillation
and industrial purposes. Rule 16 deals
with Arrangement for the lifting of
molasses by the allottee. Rule 22 is
relevant for the purpose. Rule 22 as
amended by notification dated 16th
August, 1993 is quoted as below:-

"22. Sale or supply of molasses to
distilleries
and
other
persons
for
industrial
development,_____
The
molasses produced in a sugar factory shall
be sold or supplied only to distilleries or
other persons bona fidely requiring it for
purposes of industrial development."

Prior to the aforesaid amendment Rule 22
was as under:-

"22Reservation of entire stock of
molasses for distillation and other
purposes of industrial development
(Section 8 ). (1) All stock of molasses
produced in a sugar factory shall be
deemed to have been reserved for supply
to distilleries or other persons requiring it
for purposes of industrial development
and no stock of molasses produced in a
sugar factory shall be sold or otherwise
disposed of by the occupier of any sugar
factory except in accordance with an
order in writing from the Controller.

(2) the Controller shall release any stock
of molasses in favour of occupier of a
sugar factory only when the same is not
required for distilleries or for other
purposes of industrial development."

10. Rule 29 provides for manner of
taking
samples
and
procedure
for
settlement of dispute relating to grades of
molasses. Rule 29 (4) which is relevant
for the present purposes is extracted
below:-

"29(4) In the case of transport by
road, if the allottee receiving molasses
from a sugar factory is not satisfied with
the grade declared by the sugar factory it
may apply in writing to the Sub-Inspector,
Excise or the Excise Inspector, molasses
of the area in which the sugar factory is
situated along with the testing fee to get
the molasses of the storage tank from
which the molasses was supplied by the
sugar factory or the molasses was loaded
in lorry or thela tested by the officer
authorized
under
sub-rule
(3)
for
declaration of its correct sugar contents.
The price shall be according to the grade
declared by such authorized officer. In
case a lower grade is declared, the sugar
factory will be bound to refund the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sarva Krishna Ajay Kumar Agrawal V. State of U.P. and another
633
allottee any extra payment realized
alongwith
the
testing
fee
of
such
authorized officer. The provisions of subrules (1) to (3) shall also apply in the
cases regarding taking of samples by the
Resident Sub-Inspector, Excise or Excise
Inspector, as the case may be."

11. Rule 33 provides for registers to
be maintained and statement to be
submitted
by
distilleries,
out-still
licensees and other allottees. Rule 33 is
quoted below:-

"33. Register to be maintained and
statements to be submitted by distilleries,
out-still
licensees
and
other
allottees;________(1)
the
owners
of
distillers shall maintain a record of all
moasses received, utilized for distillation
and the balance in a register in Form
M.F. 6, Parts I and II as appended to
these rules and shall submit to the
Controller a true monthly abstract of the
receipt, utilization and balance at the
distillery each month in Form M.F. 10 on
the 5th of each month following.

(2) In the case of allottee other than
distilleries (except out still) the accounts
of molasses shall be kept in a register in
Form M.F. 6 Part III as given in
appended forms and allottees shall submit
a correct monthly abstract of the same to
the Excise Inspector in whose circle the
industrial unit lies.

(3) Outsill licensees shall maintain
accounts of molasses in Form M.F. 6 Part
III as given in appended forms and shall
submit a correct monthly abstract of the
same to the Excise Inspector in whose
arde the shop lies.

Rule 35 provides for inspection book for
inspecting Officer.

12. We have extracted the relevant
provisions of the Act and the Rules for
purpose of considering the object and
scheme of the Act and the Rules which is
relevant for understanding the scope and
object of Section 7-A. The key words in
Section 7-A are:-

"Any person who requires molasses
for his distillery or for any purpose of
industrial development may apply........."

13. The first part of the above
sentence i.e. who requires molasses for
his distillery' is very clear and admit no
doubt that only that person can apply who
require molasses for his distillery. Thus
application by dealer or Handling agent
for purpose of any distillery is ruled out.
The contention of counsel for the
petitioner is that his application is on
behalf of those units which will deals
molasses for industrial development. The
contention of the counsel is that since he
after getting permission will supply to
only those units which will use it for
industrial purpose, his application is not
beyond the scope of Section 7-A. Section
7-A uses the word "require". The Law
Lexicon by P. Ramnatha Aiyar, 1997
Second Edition defines the word "require"
in following words:-

"Require" means to make necessary;
to demand to ask as of right"

Further the word "require" is defined
in following words at page 1665:-

"The word "require" is something
more than the word 'desire'. Although the
element of need is present in both the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
634
cases, the real distinction between 'desire'
and 'require' lies in the insistence of that
need. There is an element of "must have"
in the case of "require" which is not
present in the case of mere "desire"
Namshs V. Kanailal Roy Choudhary AIR
1952 Cal. 852, 853 (W.B. Premises Rent
Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 38 of
1948 S. 11(1)(f)"

The word "require" is equivalent to
"requisite or necessary".

14. It is well settled that for finding
out the meaning and purpose of a word
used in a statute the context in which it is
used is relevant. The definition of word
"require" as quoted above means that
person applying under Section 7-A must
have
necessity
or
need
for
such
requirement. A need for molasses can be
by distillery or by any unit for its
industrial
development.
Although
in
Section 7-A word "who require molasses
for his" has been used before distillery but
the said words have also to be read while
interpreting the other clause that is "for
any purpose of industrial development".
Thus the person applying should either
require for his distillery or for his any
purpose of industrial development. From
a reading of Section 7-A it is clear that a
dealer cannot apply for distillery because
before distillery the words "who require
molasses for his" have been used. The
contention of the appellant is that there is
no prohibition in applying by a dealer if
his application for the persons who
requires
molasses
for
industrial
development. The object of Section 7-A
has been to check and to provide for
supply of molasses to only those persons
who are thought fit by Controller of
Molasses to be supplied the molasses.
Two purposes have been mentioned in
Section 7-A i.e. for distillery and for
purpose of industrial development. Idea is
to supply molasses to limited category of
persons who will use for distillery and
industrial development. This has been
provided so that the distillery and
industrial development do not suffer in
their cause by non supply of molasses
since quantity produced in sugar factory is
limited. Due to this purpose Section 7-A
was enacted so that check be made and
molasses be not diverted to any other use,
if the interpretation as put up by the
counsel for the petitioner is accepted then
it will be open to any dealer to take all
quantity of molasses from sugar factory
which is to be used for industrial
development and to make them available
on a price on his sweet will or not to
supply to the persons needing for
industrial development according to their
reasonable requirement. It will lead to
hardship to the persons engaged in
industrial development as well as the
industrial growth of the State.

15. Analysis of provisions of Act,
1974 further re-enforces our view that the
application by a dealer under Section 7-A
is rule out. Section 8 sub clause (2) (aa)
provides that Controller of molasses may
require the person applied for his
distillery or for any use of industrial
development to utilize the molasses
supplied to him for the purposes specified
in the application and to observe all such
restrictions and conditions as may be
prescribed. If the dealer is to be treated as
allottee of the molasses who in his turn
sell it out to a third person, the observance
of the restriction and conditions cannot be
observed since molasses are with third
persons who are not allotees and are not
bound by restrictions provided for in
Section 8. The act intends to put
restriction and conditions on the person
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sarva Krishna Ajay Kumar Agrawal V. State of U.P. and another
635
allotted molasses under the Act. The Act
do not contemplate observance of the
restriction and conditions by a third
person to whom allottee sells the
molasses. The observance of provisions of
Section 8 (2) (aa) will become impossible
by a dealer since after sale of it to a third
party he cannot observe any condition and
restriction which are attached to supply of
molasses. Section 11 provides for penalty
or
contravention
of
the
provisions.
Section 17 of the Act as quoted above
provide for maintenance of accounts and
furnishing of return which is to be done
by both Occupier of the factory or every
person to whom the molasses are supplied
by such occupier. Testing the provision
on the basis of interpretation put up by the
counsel for the petitioner it will mean that
the third party who are sold molasses by a
dealer can always take stand that they are
not bound to maintain the accounts and
furnish the returns since they have not
been supplied molasses by occupier. This
provision
again
suggest
that
the
documents, accounts and registers has to
be maintained by a person who is
supplied molasses which in term means
that the supplier is the person who is
using the molasses and has to submit
accounts and returns regarding supply.
The analysis of the aforesaid provision
clearly indicate that the provision did not
contemplate supply of molasses to a
dealer. It contemplate supply of molasses
to a distillery or to a person using the
molasses for his industrial development
and said person is to require to maintain
accounts, returns and has to observe
conditions and directions issued regarding
supply.

16. Analysis of provisions of 1974
Rules also leads to the same conclusions
which we have drawn from the analysis of
the provisions of the Act 1964. Rule 22 of
the Rules make it clear that person
applying for molasses should bona fide
require the molasses. Rule 22 has been
amended and a comparison of amended
and unamended Rules suggest that the
amended Rule 22 has clarified that the
molasses shall be sold or supplied only to
distilleries and other persons bonafide
requiring it for the purposes of industrial
development. The dealer cannot be said to
bona fide require the molasses for
industrial development. The dealer may
require molasses for earning the profits in
his business which is not the object of the
Act and the Rules. Further Rule 29 (4)
provides that in case of transport by road,
if the allottee receiving molasses from a
sugar factory is not satisfied with the
grade declared by the sugar factory it may
apply in writing to the Sub-Inspector,
Excise or the Excise Inspector, molasses
of the area in which the sugar factory is
situated along with the testing fee to get
the molasses of the storage tank. Dealer
after supply to a third party may not be
interested for testing and the third party
who is not allottee will face difficulty in
proving his right to get molasses tested.
The scheme of Rule 29 (4) again suggest
that it is allottee who is required to use
molasses for his purpose and object to the
Grade of molasses. Rule 33 further
requires that all registers to be maintained
and the statement to be submitted by an
allottee. The allottee require to submit
monthly extract of the registers in Form
M.F.6 Part III. The dealer who has been
supplied molasses cannot comply the said
provisions since he will sell it to third
party. Under the Scheme of the Act and
the Rules allottee will be only person who
is allotted molasses under the orders of
the Controller of Molasses. Rights have
been given to the allottee for protecting
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
636
his interest. Further rule 35 provides for
inspection book for inspecting officer,
dealer cannot maintain inspection book
and the requirements of the rule is to
maintain inspection book by allottee.

17. The provisions above discussed
of the Act and the Rules clearly spells out
that the allottee of the molasses has to be
a person using the molasses for his
distillery or for his any other industrial
development. Thus the interpretation of
Section 7-A as submitted by the counsel
for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is
held that the Section 7-A contemplates
application by a person who requires the
molasses for his distillery or for his
industrial development. Application by a
dealer is ruled out under Section 7-A in
view of the Scheme of the Act and the
Rules.

18. In view of the aforesaid
discussion the first submission of the
counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable
and Section 7-A of the Act cannot be
interpreted as suggested by the counsel
for the petitioner.

19. Coming to second submission of
the counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner and other similarly situated
dealers were granted permission in earlier
years but the fact that in earlier years
petitioner was granted permission by
Controller of molasses, cannot be a basis
of right for issue of writ of mandamus. In
view of interpretation of Section 7-A
which we have taken that dealer cannot
make an application for allotment of
molasses under Section 7-A. The apex
court in 1995 (1) Supreme Court Cases
page 745 Chandigarh Administration
and another Vs. Jagjeet Singh and
others has held in paragraph 8 as under:-
"Generally speaking the mere fact
that the respondent authority has passed a
particular order in the case of another
person similarly situated can never be a
ground for issuing writ in favour of the
petitioner on the plea of discrimination. If
the order in favour of other person is
found to be contrary to law and not
warranted in the facts and circumstances
of the case, such order cannot be made
basis of issuing a writ compelling the
respondent
authority
to
repeat
the
illegality or pass another unwarranted
orders. "

In view of what has been said above,
the second submission of the counsel for
the petitioner can also not be accepted.

20. Coming to the last submission of
the counsel for the petitioner that the
molasses has now been decontrolled. No
restriction can be made on the sale and
supply of molasses. The petitioner has
relied to the order of the Controller of
molasses dated 7.7.2000 Annexure-8 to
the writ petition by which paragraph 5 (2)
of the earlier order issued by the
Controller of molasses was modified. A
mere look to the order dated 7.7.2000
Annexure -8 to the writ petition shows
that it refers to G.O. dated 26.6.2000.
According to which control of price and
distribution of molasses has been lifted.
The fact that the price is not controlled by
the State Government is not relevant for
the purpose of Section 7-A. The order
dated 5.7.2000 also refers that control of
distribution has been lifted. A copy of the
said Government order, dated 26.6.2000
has not been brought on record by the
counsel for the petitioner. Further the
order dated 7.7.2000 is an order shown to
have been issued in exercise of power
under section 8 of the Act by the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sita Ram V. D.I.O.S. and others
637
Controller. The petitioner himself has
brought on record the order of the
Controller after the order dated 7.7.2000
i.e.order dated 22.12.2000 and 3.1.2000
of the Controller of molasses Annexure -9
and 10 to the writ petition. Looking to the
aforesaid order dated 3.1.2002 it is clear
that the State Government for the year
2001-2002 has made sale of molasses
100% free which means that all the
molasses can be sold by sugar factories.
The said order, however, has put certain
restriction on the import of molasses and
regarding payment of administrative fee.
Section 8 empowers the Controller of
molasses to require occupier of the sugar
factory to sell and supply in the
prescribed manner such quantity of
molasses as specified in the order.
However, from the orders issued even
subsequent to 22.6.2000 it is clear that the
control is still exercised by the Controller
of molasses regarding sale and supply of
molasses. In any view of the matter
section 7-A is still in force. The petitioner
himself has made an application under
Section 7-A. The question in the writ
petition has arisen as to petitioner's
application has rightly been rejected or
not. For the reasons which we have given
above we are satisfied that the application
of the petitioner was rightly rejected. The
fact that sugar is hundred per cent free
and there is no control on the price can in
no manner dilute the applicability of
Section 7-A. Petitioner's claim in the writ
petition is to be considered in accordance
with Section 7-A. From the fact that the
petitioner himself has made an application
under Section 7-A and he can succeed
only when his application comes within
the four corners of Section 7-A . Thus the
third submission of the counsel for the
petitioner can also not be accepted and we
hold that the application of the petitioner
was rightly rejected.

21. In view of the foregoing
discussions and the reasons given above
we do not find any merit in this writ
petition. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD AUGUST 23, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 223 of 1993

Sita Ram

...Petitioner
Versus
District Inspector of Schools and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri A.N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri Ran Vijay Singh, S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921-
Section 16 f (i)- Salary- appointment of
C.T. grade Teacher- unless approved by
the DIOS- not entitled for salary from
State fund.

Held- Para 10

Unless the appointment of a teacher is
approved, he does not acquire the status
of teacher nor entitle to salary from the
State fund.
Case law discussed:
1997 (10) SCC. 715- Relied on.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act-S-16GG- Regulation- appointment as C.T.
grade teacher on 25.6.72 again joined on
1.7.75- appointment never approved by
the DIOS- not entitle for Regularisation.