Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966
Clause 6A, 6C, 6D & Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 3—Time limit for implementing Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum (IEM)—Appellant applied for extension of time and for change of location—High Court considered the issue regarding interpretation of Clause 6C of the Control Order—High Court concluded that the IEM stood de-recognized before the Sugar Control Order was amended on 26.8.2016, therefore, no right accrues to the appellant—Since amendments carried out in control order were for the benefit of entrepreneurs, therefore, the control order as it is existed on the date of the extension would be applicable—Language of control order has been amended time and again with a view to enable the Competent Authority to grant extension of time due to “unforeseen circumstances”—Period spent in the litigation has been rightly excluded by Competent Authority—Amendments carried out subsequently in control order would be read as retrospective as they are not creating any right for the first time—Decision of Competent Authority to grant extension of time is proper—Findings recorded by the High Court are not sustainable and liable to be set aside—Appeals allowed.
[Paras 22, 23, 29, 31, 37 & 41]
Decision : Appeals allowed