AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi V. Malimath, J—The case the petitioner is that it is a private limited company, having its office at Maliyur Village, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District. It is engaged in the business of primary distillation of Rectified Spirit from Molasses. The necessary permission and no-objection certificate have also been obtained from various authorities. The petitioner was originally accorded with the sanction to produce 27,000 litres of rectified spirit per day. In view of the rising demand, the petitioner had applied for sanction of enhancement of production from 27,000 litres to 54,000 litres per day with the respondents. Pursuant to the representations, the third respondent visited and conducted a spot inspection and submitted a report. The second respondent vide its order dated 04.10.2005 permitted the enhancement of the production capacity of the petitioner from 27,000 to 54,000 litres per day. Thereafter, the second respondent withdrew the permission, on the ground that the prior approval of the Government is required before according sanction for enhancement. The first respondent insisted on several information and material as well as directions to be obtained in order to consider the representations. Thereafter, the fourth respondent submitted a report on 02.01.2007 reporting the grant of no-objection certificate by the various authorities. The second respondent renewed the license for the assessment year 2008-09. Clearances were obtained from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. Therefore, all the requirements were complied with the petitioner. On ascertaining the documents, the first respondent considered the request of the petitioner and accorded sanction for enhancement of production for 27000 to 54000 litres per day for the subsequent years by imposing a condition on the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 18,13,97,164/- alleged to be due in the name of one Sri. T.R. Raghavendra and Sri. C.K. Amar in terms of the order dated 05.01.2010. A consequent demand notice was issued by the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2010 passed by the first respondent to the extent of imposing the condition for payment of the sum demanded and consequently, the impugned notice dated 28.01.2010 issued by the fourth respondent, the instant petition has been filed.
Sri. M.R. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner''s counsel contends that the demand made by the respondents seeking payment of a sum of Rs. 18,13,97,164/- is unsustainable. That even if the said T. Raghavendra and C.K. Amar are due any amounts to the Government, the respondents have no authority to impose such a condition on the petitioner while granting permission for enhancement of production of rectified spirit. That in law, the respondents are always at liberty to recover the sums due to the Government. The same cannot be imposed as the condition for grant of the enhancement permission.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate contends that there is substantial material to show that T. Raghavendra and C.K. Amar are due to the Government the said amounts. That T. Raghavendra is the son of the Managing Director of the petitioner company and therefore, the Government is entitled to seek recovery of the said amounts from the petitioner. That the said T. Raghavendra has already paid certain sums to the Government towards the due by him. Therefore, there is an admission. Therefore, the Government is entitled to recover the said amount.
On hearing, learned counsels I'' am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted.
The petitioner sought for permission for enhancement of production capacity of rectified spirit from 27000 litres to 54000 litres per day. He has fulfilled the various terms and conditions, which includes approval of the various authorities like State Government, Central Government etc. Consequently, permission for enhancement of capacity was granted by imposing the condition for payment of certain sums of amount. It is herein that the respondents committed an error in imposing such a condition. Notwithstanding the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the State is entitled to recover the said amounts from T. Raghavendra and C.K. Amar, there is no material to show that the petitioner company is liable to pay the said amount to the Government. Even assuming that T. Raghavendra and C.K. Amar are due to the Government, the same cannot be imposed as a condition while granting enhancement of production capacity to the petitioner. They are two different issues together. One is the right of the State Government to grant permission and the other is the right to recover the amounts due. Both cannot be combined together by imposing such a condition. Having satisfied with all the conditions in terms of the law, the permission for enhancement of production capacity was granted. The imposition of condition is therefore beyond law. The State Government has no authority to demand the same from the petitioner. However, it is needless to state that the Government is always at liberty to recover the amounts due from T. Raghavendra as well as C.K. Amar. However, I do not find any necessity to go into the issue as to T. Raghavendra and C.K. Amar owed any money to the respondents, whether any amounts have been paid to the Government, whether there is an admission or not etc.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2010 in No. FD.118/ECD.2005 issued by the first respondent in so for as it relates to imposing the condition for payment of Rs. 18,13,97,164/- is set aside as well and the consequent demand in terms of Annexure - ''V is set aside with a liberty to the State Government as aforesaid.
Rule made absolute.