U. P. KATTHA FACTORIES ASSOCIATIONversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                        U.P. KATIHA FACTORIES ASSOCIATION                                  A
                                          v.
                              THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                                     JANUARY2, 1996

                     [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                                B

              Constitution of India, 1950:

              Art. 14--Encouraging small scale industries using 'Khair wood'
        purchased from outside the State in view of the shortage of forest
        produce-Subsequently introducing complete ban on registration of small             c
        scale industries-Eeld, not violative of as it was a policy decision-Eence
        no inteiference called for.

              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                Civil Appeal No. 1546 of
        l~.                                                                                D
              From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.91 of the Allahabad High
        Court in W.P. No. 1828/91.

              Arvind Kumar and Ms. Laxmi Arvind for the Appellant.
                                                                                           E
             S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Aman Vachher, Ashok K. Srivastava for
        the Respondents.

              The following Order of the Court was delivered :

              Leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides.                                  F
               The facts 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. Appellant is 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       G
        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 prop,osed S.I. units for a period of one year on
        February 11, 1986.                                                                 H
                                               5
     6                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1996] I S.C.R.
A          The Government thereafter introduced complete ban on registration
    from December 11, 1986. The appellant Association had applied for cancel-
    lation or relaxation of the ban imposed including the 4th respondent but the
    Director refused to acceed to the same. Consequently, the appellant filed a
    writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court of
    Allahabad in the order dated May 3, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 1828/91
B
    dismissed the writ petition holding 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.

C        It is contended for the appellant that the Government having allowed
  other units to obtain Khair Wood from the Government quota, denial of the
  same to S.S.!. units registered under provisional registration wo.uld be
  discriminatory violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Having given our
  anxious consideration to the contentions of the counsel and the argument of
D Shri Mehta learned counsel for th<' 4th respondent, we are of the view that
  it is not a fit case for our interference. It 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, 1'986
  were entitled to be considered for allotment and any unit registered there-
E after 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. !he 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.
F 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.l. units registered after September 12,
   1983, were allowed registration by proceedings dated February 25, 1984
   with a condition that they will no! apply for U.P. forest wood, and they
G 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.l. units was imposed on
   or after December 11, 1986 allotment of the forest produce required for
H industries.
                       U.P. KATTHA FACTORIES v. STATE                       7
       Under these circu1nsta11ccs. it being a policy decision we do not think   A
that it \vould be a case for 0ur interference. The High Court has rightly
declined to exercise its po\vers.

       l'hc appeal is accordi!1gly <lisn1isscd. No Costs.

G.N.                                                        Appeal dismissed.