Karnataka High Court

M/S Askins Biofuels Private Limited vs M R Ravikumar on 1 February, 2024

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                                                    -1-
                                                                  CCC NO.100003/2024



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                 DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                                 PRESENT
                                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
                                                    AND
                                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
                                 CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100003 OF 2024
                      BETWEEN:
KM
SOMASHEKAR
                      M/S. ASKINS BIOFUELS PRIVATE LIMITED,
Digitally signed by
K M SOMASHEKAR        150/6, GOKAK ROAD,
Date: 2024.02.09
10:28:38 +0530        ALAGAVADI, HARUGERI,
                      TALUK. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI
                      REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
                      MR. ASHOK J. ASKI.
                                                                     ...COMPLAINANT
                      (BY SRI. ANIRUDHA R.J. NAIK AND
                          SRI. ABHISHEK L. KALLED, ADVOCATES)


                      AND:

                      1.   M.R. RAVIKUMAR,
                           THE COMMISSIONER OF CANE DEVELOPMENT
                           AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR,
                           GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
                           5TH FLOOR, F BLOCK, CBAB COMPLEX,
                           KHB BUILDING, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
                           K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

                      2.   SHRI. GURUNATH S/O. NARASINHA JOSHI
                           MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                           M/S. ALAGAWADI BIRESHWAR SUGARS PVT. LTD.,
                           REGISTERED OFFICE AT 198/137,
                           KALLESHWAR INDUSTRIES,
                           REGULATED MARKET ROAD, BAMBOO BAZAR,
                           DAVANGERE -577001.
                           UNIT AT SY.NO. 106, ALAGAWADI-591317,
                           TALUK . RAIBAG DIST. BELAGAVI.

                                                                            ...ACCUSED

                      3.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                                                      ... PROFORMA RESPONDENT


                      (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR PROFORMA RESPONDENT)
                             -2-
                                          CCC NO.100003/2024



     THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950, PLEASED TO, INITIATE CONTEMPT
ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 HEREIN FOR THE WILFUL
AND INTENTIONAL ACT OF CONTEMPT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT FOR
HAVING VIOLATED WITH AND TOWARDS DISREGARD TO THE ORDER
DATED 31/03/2023 MADE IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100075/2023 (GM-
RES) PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ALSO TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS
HEREIN FOR THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IN TERMS
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971
AFTER HOLDING AN ENQUIRY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

     THIS CONTEMPT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 17.01.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

This contempt petition is filed under Sections 11 and

12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article

215 of the Constitution of India alleging disobedience of

the judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed in W.A.

No.100075/2023.

2. Heard learned counsel, Sri. Anirudha R.J Nayak

for the complainant, and perused the petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant would

submit that the Division Bench of this Court, in its

judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed in W.A.

No.100075/2023 declared that the standalone distillery

such as appellant No.1, i.e., the complainant herein, which

is established in terms of the Notification dated 08.03.2019

and 14.01.2021 for manufacturing ethanol, are not

governed by the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control)

Order, 1966. Learned counsel would further submit that

when this Court has declared that the Sugarcane (Control)

Order, 1966, is not applicable to the standalone distilleries

like the complainant herein, under impugned order at

Annexure-B, accused No.1 in exercise of power conferred

under Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 11 of Sugarcane (Control) Order,

1966 and Clause 6-A of Sugarcane (Control)(Amendment)

Order, 2006, has directed the complainant herein to stop

operation of Sugar factory and crushing of sugarcane at its

present sites and directed to immediately stop procuring

and purchasing of sugarcane for crushing the same for

manufacture of ethanol. Learned counsel would submit that

such direction issued in exercise of powers under the

Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 is contrary to the

judgment in W.A. No.100075/2023 and is in total

disobedience of the judgment dated 31.03.2023. Learned

counsel would submit that passing of the order dated

21.10.2023 directing to stop crushing of sugarcane and to

stop procuring and purchasing sugarcane is willful

disobedience of the judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed in

W.A. No.100075/2023. Learned counsel would submit that

when the Division Bench of this Court has categorically

declared that the standalone distilleries such as

complainant is not governed by the provisions of the

Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, passing order in exercise

of Sugarcane (Control) Order would be per se contempt of

the judgment passed by the Division Bench and as such,

he prays for initiating contempt proceedings against the

accused.

4. On hearing the learned counsel for the

complainant and on perusal of the judgment dated

31.03.2023 in W.A.No.100075/2023 as well as the order

dated 21.10.2023 passed by accused No.1 in exercise of

powers under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, we are

of the view that, when the order dated 21.10.2023 is

subject matter of W.P. No.106747/2023 and in the said

writ petition when the complainant is directed to give an

undertaking not to crush the sugarcane in its premises by

procuring sugarcane from within 15 kms. Radius, it may

not be proper for this Court to give any finding as to

passing of order dated 21.10.2023 would be disobedience

or otherwise.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel

for the complainant brought to the notice of this Court that

the order, dated 21.10.2023, passed by accused No.1 in

exercise of powers under the provisions of Sugarcane

(Control) Order, 1966, directing to stop operation of

sugarcane factory and to stop procuring and purchasing of

sugarcane, is subject matter of W.P. No.106747/2023,

which is connected with W.P. No.104198/2023, and the

learned Single Judge of this Court, as an interim measure,

has directed the petitioner No.1 therein, i.e., the

complainant herein, to give an undertaking not to crush

the sugarcane in its premises by procuring sugarcane from

the area within 15 Kms. Radius from the sugar factory of

5th respondent in Writ Petition No.106747/2023.

6. On perusal of the order dated 21.10.2023

passed by accused No.1, it is seen that accused No.1 has

come to the conclusion that the complainant as well as

M/s. Sri. Bharamanandasagar Jaggery Industries are not

standalone distilleries. The said finding is based on the

report of the Director, S.Ninjalingappa Sugar Institute, and

Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi. The order would also

indicate that the said report was made available to the

complainant along with a notice and the complainant has

replied to the said notice. The findings of accused No.1 that

the complainant is not a standalone distillery is at

paragraphs 5, 11, 12, 13 and 16 of the order dated

21.10.2023 which reads as follows:

"5. Both Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries and Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., have been provided the copy of the reports of the Director Shri Nijalingappa Sugar Institute and Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi and requested them to reply to the same. But neither Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., nor Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries have submitted any reply to the said show-cause notice.

11. The Director, Shri Nijalingappa Sugar Institute after inspecting the various machineries and equipment's established by Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries and Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., came to conclusion that both the units are operating as an integrated unit. It has been the contention of Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., all along that it is a stand-alone distillery manufacturing ethanol and it does not come within the purview of Sugarcane (Control) Order. But the actual establishment of the unit by Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., and Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries clearly reveal that it is an integrated sugar factory.

12. Both Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries and Askins Biofuels themselves have submitted a site plan to Director Shri Nijalingappa Sugar Institute, Belagavi. A close perusal of the site- plan of the Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries shows that the milling house is located towards the South-East Portion and the boiler is located in Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd. On verification of the property records and maps submitted by Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery industries and Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., it is found that Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries does not own any property and the "Sugarcane Crushing unit" which is maintained as mill house is located in the property belonging to Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., The reports

and site plans clearly show that Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., is not a stand-alone distillery and there is a dedicated pipeline which has been installed for supplying sugar syrup through a pumping arrangement for manufacturing of ethanol.

13. It is prima facie found that in order to avoid the restrictions imposed under Clause 6-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Amendment Order, 2006, a small unit shown as a jaggery manufacturing unit has been established. The above reports have been submitted to this office based on the information furnished by Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries and Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd. Though an opportunity of hearing has been given to Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries and Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., they have not come forward to file their detailed reply to the show-cause notice.

16. Hence in the present case also it is crystal clear from the establishment of the units that a sugarcane is being crushed in the unit owned by Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., and by vacuum pan process ethanol is manufactured from sugar syrup. Therefore the said integrated unit clear falls within the definition of "factory or sugar factory" and the same cannot be setup at its present establishment, since the same is located on the Southern side of Alagawadi Bireshwar Sugar Pvt. Ltd., which is an existing sugar factory and whose Industrial Entrepreneurs Memorandum (IEM) has been taken

on record as a "NEW SUGAR FACTORY" by the Chief Director (Sugar) by its order dated 20.10.2015 as provided under Explanation 2 to Clause 6-A of the Sugarcane (Control) (Amendment) Order, 2006. Alagawadi Bireshwar Sugar Pvt. Ltd., has been provided with an extension of time to implement its Industrial Entrepreneurs Memorandum (IEM) and commence commercial operation up to 07.07.2024. Therefore in view of the prohibition imposed under Clause 6-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Amendment Order, 2006 neither Askins Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., nor Shri Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries can set up a sugar factory with 15 kms radius of any existing or new sugar factory."

7. As the order passed by accused No.1 is the

subject matter of W.P. No.106747/2023, where the learned

Single Judge has directed the petitioner No.1 therein, i.e.,

the complainant herein, to give an undertaking not

to crush the sugarcane in its premises by procuring

sugarcane from the area within 15 Kms. Radius from

the sugar factory of 5th respondent in Writ Petition

No.106747/2023, we are not inclined to issue notice in the

present contempt petition. It is open for the complainant

to initiate contempt proceedings after disposal and

depending on the outcome of the writ petition, since in the

- 10 -