http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: U.P. KATTHA FACTORIES ASSOCIATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1586            1996 SCC  (2)  23  JT 1996 (1)    77        1996 SCALE  (1)153

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R       Leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides.      The  fact   are  that  pursuant  to  the  policy  dated September 12, 1983, industrial units based on various forest produce i.e.  Khair Wood  were allowed  to be  set up in the State. an association of the industries. The Government gave relaxation on  February  25,  1984  giving  liberty  to  the Director of  Industries to  encourage small scale industries on the  ground  that  those  who  would  not  operate  their industries from  the forest  wood may  be considered for the licence and  that  they  would  purchase  ‘khair  wood  from outside the State. The respondent No.4 had given provisional registration of  his proposed S.I. units for a period of one year on February 11, 1986.      The Government  thereafter introduced  complete ben  on registration  from   December  11,   1986.   The   appellant Association had  applied for  cancellation or  relaxation of the  ban  imposed  including  the  4th  respondent  but  the Director refused  to the  same. Consequently,  the appellant filed a  writ petition in the high Court. The Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in order dated May 3, 1991 in Writ Petition  holding that  the matter  doing one of policy taken by the Government at the highest that the matter being one of  policy taken by the Government at the highest level, the Court was not inclined to examine the correctness of the policy. Accordingly  it declined  to pass  any direction  as sought for.      It is  contended rot  the appellant that the Government having allowed  other units  to obtain  Khair wood  from the Government  quota,  denial  of  the  same  to  S.S.I.  units registered   under   provisional   registration   would   be discriminatory violative  of Art  14  of  the  Constitution. Having given  our anxious  consideration to the conventional of the  counsel and  the  argument  of  Shri  Mehta  learned counsel for  the 4th  respondent, we are of the view that it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

is not  a fit  case for  our interference.  If is  seen,  as stated  in  the  counter  filed  in  this  Court,  that  the Government  had   constituted  a   committee  to  which  the Secretary  Forest  was  the  Chair-person.  It  had  met  on December 13,  1990 and  had decided  that small  scale units registered prior  to December  11, 1986  were entitled to be considered for  allotment and any unit registered thereafter would be  allowed to operate only subject to their obtaining required wood  from outside  the State.  It is  seen that in view of  non-availability of the forest produce in the State of U.P.  the Government  constituted  a  committee  and  the Secretary Forest  Department was  its Chair-person. They had gone into  the question  of availability  and  allotment  of Khair wood  in the  State. They have imposed a cut off date, i.e., December 11, 1986 and allotment would be made, subject to the  availability of  forest produce, to those industries established prior  to the  aforesaid date.  It is  true,  as stated in  the order passed by the Director, that S.I. units registered  after   September   12,   1983,   were   allowed registration by  proceedings dated  February 25, 1984 with a condition that they will not apply for U.P. forest wood, and they would get it from outside the State. Even in respect of such industries  it was  also further stated that though the Director of  Industries granted provisional registration. It would only  be until  or before  December 11, 1986. In other words, complete  ban  on  registration  of  S.I.  units  was imposed on  or after  December 11, 1986 for allotment of the forest produced required for industries.      Under these  circumstances, it  being a policy decision we  do   not  think   that  it  would  be  a  case  for  our interference.  The   High  Court  has  rightly  declined  to exercise its powers.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.