9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows: The respondent ITC Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, "the company"), having its registered office at 37, Chowringee Road, Calcutta. This company is engaged in manufacture of cigarettes and has established several factories for this purpose including a factory at Sardar Patel Marg, Saharanpur. For manufacture of cigarettes, leaf tobacco is required which is excisable to fee levied and collected by the Tobacco Board (in short, "the Board") constituted under the Tobacco Boards Act, 1975 (in short, "the Tobacco Act"). The company purchases tobacco in its raw form from the auction body established by the Tobacco Board at various places throughout the country. The raw tobacco so purchased is brought to the factory at Saharanpur where it is processed and cut tobacco is prepared. This cut tobacco is further processed and then such tobacco is used for manufacture of cigarettes. The cut tobacco prepared in the factory at Saharanpur is dispatched to the factories of the company at Calcutta where it is used for manufacturing cigarettes. Some of the cut tobacco produced at Saharanpur factory is dispatched to certain contract manufacturers who e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished its reply and placed materials before the director, Mandi Parishad on December 2, 1998. The director, Mandi Parishad, however, by order dated January 14, 1999, rejected the case of the respondent-company and required the President Mandi Samiti to take fresh decision with regard to the levy of market fee in the light of the guidelines provided in the order. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have filed the present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, "the Constitution"). The High Court held that the director could not have exercised the power of revision under section 32 of the Act and therefore, the order impugned, i.e., one dated January 14, 1999, was without jurisdiction. Even on the merits it was held that the director had reopened all the cases since 1987, and even in respect of proceedings which were not referred to him at all. According to learned counsel for the appellant the approach of the learned single judge constituting the majority suffers from various infirmities. The High Court has erroneously considered the provisions to hold that the director had no power. Even otherwise on the merits, it is submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regoing provisions, such power shall include the power- (i) to approve proposals of the new sites selected by the committee for the development of markets; (ii) to supervise and guide the committees in the preparation of site-plans and estimates of construction programmes undertaken by the committee; (iii) to execute all works chargeable to the Board's fund; (iv) to maintain accounts in such forms as may be prescribed and get the same audited in such manner as may be laid down in regulations of the Board; (v) to publish annually at the close of the year, its progress report, balance-sheet, and statement of assets and liabilities and send copies to each member of the Board as well as to the chairman of all the market committees; (vi) to make necessary arrangements for propaganda and publicity on matters related to regulated marketing of agricultural produce; (vii) to provide facilities for the training of officers and servants of the market committee; (viii) to prepare and adopt budget for the ensuing year; (ix) to make subventions [and loans] to market committees for the purposes of this Act on such terms and conditions as the Board may determine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Section 33: The State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, delegate, subject to such conditions or restrictions as may be specified therein, any of its powers or the powers of any other authority under this Act, to any officer or authority subordinate to it." After 1973 Amending Act "Section 32: The Board may, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision of, or order passed by a committee, at any time call for and examine the proceedings of the committee and where it is of the opinion that the decision or order of the committee should be modified, annulled, or reversed, pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit. Section 33: The State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, delegate, subject to such conditions or restrictions as may be specified therein, any of its powers under this Act, to the Board or to any of its officers." After the 1977 Amending Act "Section 32: The Board may, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision of, or order passed by a committee, at any time call for and examine the proceedings of the committee and where it is of the opinion that the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought in by the 1973 amendment. The submission of the appellant is that when section 26F came into question and was not repealed and was continued, the repository of the power was the director and the source of power continued. Till 1991, the existing arrangements continued notwithstanding amendment to section 33. Arrangements and delegations made under the whole regime continued. According to section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (in short, "the General Clauses Act"), post 1991 all delegations (after regulation came to become operative) has to be with prior sanction of the Board. Comparison of section 26-I becomes otiose and irrelevant and cannot be operative if the High Court's view is accepted. Every statute has to be read as a whole and no part of the statute can be rendered inoperative by another provision. The power of revision continued with the State Government up to 1973. After the 1973 amendment the revisional power was with the Board and not with the State Government and it was not a case where delegation under section 33 had to play any role. After 1991 delegation can be either under section 26-I or section 33. In reply it is submitted that section 26- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
