Molasses reservation policy upheld: participation in the advisory process barred challenge, and no arbitrariness or constitutional breach was shown.

A molasses regulation policy requiring 22% reservation and a 1:3.5 reserved-to-unreserved ratio was examined under the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964. The Court held that a party which had participated through its representative association in the statutory advisory process and had accepted relaxation under the policy could not later challenge the reservation and ratio, as the challenge was barred by estoppel. The policy was also found reasonable and non-arbitrary because it operated within the statutory scheme, included case-by-case relaxation, and was directed to secure supply for distilleries and State revenue. No violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) was made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner, having participated through its association in the statutory advisory process and having accepted relaxation under the policy, was estopped from challenging the reservation of molasses and the maintenance of the reserved and unreserved ratio; (ii) Whether the Molasses Policy 2011-12 requiring reservation of 22% molasses and maintenance of the 1:3.5 ratio was arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner, having participated through its association in the statutory advisory process and having accepted relaxation under the policy, was estopped from challenging the reservation of molasses and the maintenance of the reserved and unreserved ratio.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 3 and 8 of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 contemplates advice of the Advisory Committee and regulation of sale and supply of molasses with flexibility for variation and relaxation. The petitioner's association had participated in the Committee's deliberations that led to the policy decision. The Court held that, in these circumstances, the petitioner could not approbate and reprobate by challenging the very reservation and ratio that flowed from the process in which it had participated.

Conclusion: The challenge was barred by estoppel and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Molasses Policy 2011-12 requiring reservation of 22% molasses and maintenance of the 1:3.5 ratio was arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 8 of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 permits regulation of supply of molasses and contemplates proportionate allocation with variations based on local requirements and transport facilities, while the policy also provides for relaxation on a case-to-case basis. The Court held that the policy was framed on the basis of the statutory advisory mechanism, was meant to secure supply for distilleries and State revenue, and had in fact been relaxed in the petitioner's case. The Court further held that stray observations in an earlier judgment could not displace the statutory scheme or the present policy challenge.

Conclusion: The policy was upheld as reasonable and non-arbitrary, and no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) was made out.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish any legal ground for interference with the molasses reservation policy or the maintenance of the stock ratio, and the writ petition was rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a regulatory molasses policy is framed under the statutory advisory mechanism, incorporates built-in relaxation powers, and is supported by participation of the affected industry through its representative body, a challenge to the reservation quota and stock ratio will fail absent proof of arbitrariness or constitutional violation.

---