Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Central Government could grant wholly or partial exemption from payment of additional cane price under clause 5(3) of the Sugar Cane Control Order, 1966 without hearing the cane growers, and whether such exemption order was valid in law.
Analysis: The exemption power under clause 5(3) was held to be part of the statutory scheme governing fixation and payment of additional price, and not an independent administrative act. The order affected the growers' right and interest in receiving additional price already determined under the Order. Since the price-fixation mechanism itself contemplated hearing the interests of both growers and producers, the later exemption decision, which could extinguish or reduce the growers' accrued entitlement, also required observance of natural justice. The Government had to invite and consider the growers' objections before deciding whether the factory had made no or inadequate profit and whether exemption should be granted.
Conclusion: Hearing of the cane growers was mandatory before exemption under clause 5(3) could be granted, and the impugned exemption order was invalid.
Final Conclusion: The exemption granted to the factory could not stand, and the growers' challenge succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory exemption power directly affects an accrued monetary entitlement created by a regulatory scheme, the authority must afford an opportunity of hearing to the persons whose rights are likely to be diminished or defeated.