M/S BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD. versus SIR SHADI LAL ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANR.

M/S BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD. versus SIR SHADI LAL ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANR.

The executive notification under Section 298 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 de-licensing the sugar industry is valid. The Act does not require Parliamentary approval for such a notification. The power conferred is not excessive delegation; sufficient legislative guidance exists. Judicial review cannot be exercised in the absence of violation of statute, constitutional provision, or manifest arbitrariness. Economic and policy matters are primarily for the executive's discretion.

Parties
Appellant: M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.; Respondents: Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 24.08.2005 of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36685 of 2004.
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
De Licencing of Sugar Industry, Validity of Executive Notifications, Scope of Judicial Review, Power of Exemption Under Industries (development and Regulation) Act, 1951, Doctrine of Excessive Delegation
Administrative Law Industries Regulation Economic Policy Constitutional Law De Licencing of Sugar Industry Validity of Executive Notifications Scope of Judicial Review Power of Exemption Under Industries (development and Regulation) Act, 1951 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.

Appellant

Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 24.08.2005 of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36685 of 2004.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the de-licencing of the sugar industry by notification under section 29B (now 298) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was valid and within the powers of the executive.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in quashing the Press Note and notification on the ground that de-licencing could only be done by the legislature.

Ratio Decidendi

The executive notification under Section 298 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 de-licensing the sugar industry is valid. The Act does not require Parliamentary approval for such a notification. The power conferred is not excessive delegation; sufficient legislative guidance exists. Judicial review cannot be exercised in the absence of violation of statute, constitutional provision, or manifest arbitrariness. Economic and policy matters are primarily for the executive's discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Press Note 12 dated 31.8.1998 and Notification SO 808(E) dated 11.9.1998 under Section 298 (formerly 29B) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, de-licencing the sugar industry, are upheld as valid.
  • Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2005 allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside.