Kedia
Leather and Liquor Vs. Union of India [1993] INSC 183 (2 April 1993)
Ahmadi,
A.M. (J) Ahmadi, A.M. (J) Mohan, S. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC Supl. (1) 714 1993 SCALE (2)573
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1.Counsel
for the Union of India is not able to state if the Cabinet has taken a decision
in this matter even though almost two years have elapsed. This Court 715 had by
its order dated April 10, 1991 directed the Union of India to examine without
delay the feasibility of giving statutory power to the Board at the Centre to
enable it to give binding directions to State Controllers in regard to
allocation of molasses to overcome the difficulties pointed out in the writ
petitions before it. Except seeking adjournments after adjournments no
effective action appears to have been taken. Even today the learned counsel for
the Union seeks some time to ascertain from
the department concerned the outcome of the earlier statements made to this
Court that the Cabinet is considering the question of action to be taken in response
to this Court's order of April
10, 1991. it is thus
obvious that almost two years have now elapsed and this Court is being told
time and again that the decision is yet awaited. This Court cannot wait
indefinitely. Mr Gauri Shankar states that he may be given one further last
opportunity to ascertain the outcome of the decision, if any, taken by the
Cabinet in this behalf as per the earlier assurances given to this Court. We
fail to understand why the officers of the department concerned have not shown
any sense of urgency to intimate the decision, if any taken, to the learned
counsel well before the date of hearing rather than leaving it to the learned
counsel to ascertain from them if any decision has been taken. Is it not the
responsibility of the officers concerned to keep the counsel informed of the
developments so that this Court's time is not wasted and the matter is not
required to be adjourned for ascertaining the decision, if any. If such
indifference is shown we may be compelled to pass harsh orders not only against
the Union of India but also against individual officers.
2.We
also find that on January
22, 1993 we had, on
the statement made by the learned counsel for the Union of India, allocated an
additional quota of 50 thousand metric tonnes of molasses, taking the total to
1.55 metric tonnes, to the State of Madhya Pradesh. We had directed that this much quantity should be released
to the State of Madhya Pradesh subject to further adjustments, if any, and we
would review the position at the end of March 1993. That is how the petition
has now come up before us. What we find from the letter of the Under Secretary
to the Government of India dated March 5, 1993, is that the State of Uttar
Pradesh expressed its inability to release the additional quota whereupon the
Union Ministry diverted 57,400 metric tonnes of molasses from Uttar Pradesh to
Bihar, at the same time stating it was difficult to give any direction to the
State of Bihar because Central Government lacked authority to issue such directions.
While on the one hand this Court's direction of April 10, 1991 is not implemented while on the other hand shelter is being
taken under that very situation.
This
means that the Union of India wants to leave the matter at the sole discretion
of the State of Bihar regardless of its counsel's
statement to this Court on January 22, 1993.
Mr Gauri
Shankar states that he may be given one further opportunity to ensure
compliance. Counsel could have been spared the embarrassment caused to him
because of the indifference of the officers concerned who were duty-bound to
instruct him of the progress, if any. We accede to his request finally but we
would like to make it clear that we expect the officers to take note that this
Court will not show further indulgence. Let the matter come up on April 16, 1993.
Back