STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERSversusMAWANA SUGARS LIMITED

                       [2017] 10 S.C.R. 1097


           STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS                           A


                 MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED
                 (Civil Appeal No. 10610 of 2017)
                        AUGUST 18, 2017                              B

          [ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
       Excise - Molasses Policy - Interpretation of - State
Government, for the Molasses Year 2015-2016 issued "Molasses
Policy'', which provided for a reser11ation of 25% of the molasses C
produced to be supplied to the country liquor manufacturers as per
the formula mentioned therein - According to the respondent, the
reservation of 25% would apply to the balance of molasses left
over after its captive consumption for its distillery - Whereas,
appellallts asserted that the reservation of 25% would be on the
total production of 11wlasses, to be adjusted el'entually on the basis D
of the balance stock computable in terms of the formula defined in
the Policy - Held: In the Policy for the Molasses Year 2015-16,
mandate is for 25% reservation of the total molasses produced -
Unambiguous prescript of the Policy that the reservation would be.
of 25% of the molasses produced, which by no means, can be E
construed to connote that such reservation had been contemplated
to be only of the balance stock left over after the captive
consumption of the sugar mill(s) concerned - Noticeably, the Policy
co11sciously underlines that in any event thereby, the captive
consumption of molasses by the sugar mills is not affected at all, so
much so that if the balance stock is more than the extent of F
reservation, the whole of it would apply, but if the balance stock is
less than the quantity to be reserved, the reservation would work
only to the extent of the balance stock and not in excess - Therefore,
the plea of the respondent that the reservation is unmistakably limited
to 25% of the balance stock under all situations is visibly flawed G
and fallacious.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 It would be apparent from the Molasses Policy .
2015-16 that for the Molasses Year 2015-16, every sugar mill, at
the first place, would have to keep 25% of the molasses produced, H
                                1097
1098            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2017] 10 S.C.R.


 A     reserved and those sugar mills, whose distilleries are situated in
       the State, would apply the following norms of reservation:
       (a) If the balance stuck exceeds the reserved quantity (25%),
       then in that case, full reservation would a11ply to them w.e.f. the
       commencement of the molasses year.
 B     (b) In case the balance stuck is less than the reserved c1uantity
       then, reservation would apply w.e.f'. the commencement of the
       molasses year, but would be limited to the c1uantity of' balance
       stock.
       (c) If the balance stock is nil i.e if the captive consumption of
 c     molasses exceeds the c1uantity available to them, no reservation
       would apply. [Para 21] [1109-E-H]
             1.2 The Policy determined the balance stock as hereunder:
       Balance stock fur the Molasses Year 2015-16 = unreserved
       preliminary stock of the group of mills in the Molasses Year 2015-
D      16 + production in the Molasses Year 2015-16 - self-consumption
       of molasses in the Molasses Year 2015-16 (equivalent of self-
       consumption of molasses up to 31.10.2015 in the Molasses Year
       2014-15). [Para 24] [1110-D]
          1.3 The balance stock for the purpose of the Policy,
 Etherefore, in essence, is the stock that would be left over after
  utilization of the commodity for captive consumption in the
  Molasses Year 2015-16 from the sum total of the unreserved
  preliminary produce of the same molasses year and the production
  thereof in the said year. The computation of balance stock though
F relevant to eventually decide as to the extent of reservation that
  would be effective to ascertain the volume of supply to other
  distilleries manufacturing country-made liquor, it however does
  not in any way support the contention of the respondent that
  irrespective of the eventualities in the aforementioned clauses
  (a), (b) and (c), the reservation would be of 25% only of such
G balance stock and not otherwise. This is in view of the
  unambiguous prescript of the Policy that the reservation would
  be of 25% of the molasses produced, which by no means, can be
  construed to connote that such reservation had been
  contemplated to be only of the balance stock left over after the
H captive consumption of the sugar mill(s) concerned. Such a
     STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS v. MAWANA                         1099
                   SUGARS LIMITED

construction would be a total misreading of the Policy and would       A
border on perversity. [Para 25) [1110-E-H]
       2. Noticeably, the Policy in question consciously underlines
that in any event thereby, the captive consumption of molasses
by the sugar mills is not affected at all, so much so that if the
balance stock is more than the extent of reservation, the whole B
of it would apply, but if the balance stock is less than the c1uantity
to be reserved, the reservation would work only to the extent of
the balance stock and not in excess thereof. As theJlalance stock,
if any, conceptually would be the residue afte1· the utilization by
way of captive consumption, in absence of the challenge to the C
Policy to be illegal, unfair, unjust, unreasonable or
unconstitutional, the plea of the respondent that the reservatiori-
is unmistakably limited to 25% of the balance stock under all
situations is visibly flawed and fallacious. The measure of the
captive consumption for the Molasses Year 2015-16, on the basis
of such utilization for the Molasses Year 2014-15, in absence of D
any overwhelming material to the contrary, also cannot be faulted
with. [Para 28) [1112-A-D]
      Dlwmpur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others
      (2007) 8 sec 338 : c20011 10 SCR 245 - held
      inapplicable.                                                    E
      SIEL Limited v. Union of India (1998) 7 SCC 26 : [1998)
      1 Suppl. SCR 560 - referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
[2007] 10 SCR 245                  held inapplicable Para 6
                                                                       F
[1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 560            referred to         Para 18
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.10610
of2017.
       From the Judgment and final Order dated 07-10-2016 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ (C) No.40567 of   G
2016.
     Dinesh Dwivedi, Ms. lndu Malhotra, Sr. Advs., Mr. Ardhendumauli
Kumar Prasad, Ms.Nalin Kohli, Prasanjit Keshwani, Ankit Roy, V. D.
Khanna, Sumit Goel, Ms. Sona! Gupta, P. K. Bhalla, Praveen Kumar,
Ms. Babita Sant, Tanvir Nayar, Ad vs. for the appearing parties.       H
llOO             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2017] 10 S.C.R.


 A            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .
              AMITAVA ROY, J. I. Leave granted.
              2. The State ofUttar Pradesh along with its functionaries of the
       Department of Excise are in appeal against the judgment and order dated
       07.10.2016 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
 B     thereby in essence directing the appellants to allow the respondent to
       retain 25% of the balance stock of molasses, after utilization for its captive
       consumption, for supply to the distilleries manufacturing liquor for the
       Molasses Year2015-16. The respondent was also left at liberty to move
       the appropriate authority in the event of its requirement for further quantity
 c     of molasses for its captive consumption during the said Molasses Year.
       The appellants repudiate this determination and the above directions to
       be opposed to and militative of the policy for the Molasses Year 2015-16.
          3. We have heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel
   for the appellants and Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the
 D respondent.
          4. The pleaded facts in brief, sans the inessentials· need be
   adverted to forthe required grip of the issues. The respondent company
   has three sugar mills in the name and style of "Mawana Sugar Work.s,
   Maw an a, Distt. Meerut," "Nanglamnal Sugar Complex, Nanglamal, Distt.
 E Meerut and 'Titawi Sugar Complex, Titiwi, Distt. Muzaffarnagar" which
   are engaged in the manufacture of crystal sugar through vacuum pan
   process and produce molasses as a by-product. Admittedly the storage,
   sale, supply and distribution of molasses within the State of U.P. is
   governed by the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (for
   short, hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), whereunder in terms
 F of Section 8, the Controller of Molasses, with the prior approval of the
   State Government, is empowered to issue order to a sugar mill for transfer
   or sale or supply in the prescribed manner, such quantity of molasses to
   such persons, as may be specified therein. It is a matter of record that
   every year, the State Government issues·"Molasses Policy", whereby it
 G prescribes the mode and manner in which the molasses produced by the
   sugar mills would be dealt with. The policy invariably provides for
   reservation of ·certain portion of the molasses produced by the sugar
   mills for sale and supply to the country liquor manufacturers.
       5. The State Government, forthe Molasses Year2015-l 6, vide its
 H communication No. 39/201611501/E-2/13-2016-74/2015 dated 24.6.2016
       STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & OTHERS v. MAWANA                              1101
             SUGARS LIMITED [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

issued the "Molasses Policy" (for short also "Policy") for the said year.      A
The Policy provided for a reservation of25% of the molasses produced
to be supplied to the country liquor manufacturers as per the formula
mentioned therein.
    · 6. The parties are at issue on the interpretation of the above
Policy. Whereas, according to the respondent, the reservation of 25% · B
would apply to the balance stock of molasses left over after its captive
consumption for its distillery, as propounded in Dhampllr Sugar Mills
Ltd. vs. State of U.P. a11d otlzers 1 , the assertio.n of the appellants herein
is that having regard to the content and purport of the Policy, the
reservation of 25% would be on the total production of molasses; to be
adjusted eventually on the basis of the balance stock computable in C
terms of the formula defined in the Policy.
       7. The pleaded case of the respondent is that the entire
requirement of molasses for operating its distillery is met from the stock
produced in its sugar mills and that dealing with previous Molasses Year
2015- I 6, the balance stock of molasses left over after such captive D
consumption was made available for supply to the· country liquor
manufacturers in terms of the Policy for that year.
        8. According to it, in the Molasses Year 2015-16, the productiori
of molasses has been much less for various reasons and though it had
consumed a portion of the stock for its captive consumption in its E
distilleries till 6.6.2016, when the operations had to be suspended due to··
rain, it was anticipated that the whole 'of the remaining stock \vould be
utilised in its distilleries (tnd no baiance stock would be left for ~es~rvation
or supply to the country-made Iiq~or.inanufacturers. Though stating the
above in details, it had made a representation on 5.7.2016 before the F
Controller of Molasses highlighting that the entire stock of m9lasses
produced during the Molasses Year 2015-16 would be unavoidably utilised·
for its captive consumption in its distillery, the said authority by the order
dated 27.7.2016 without recording any reason has directed compliance
of the Policy for the Molasses Year 2015-16, and thereby for all practical
purposes has rejected the request made.                                          G

       9. The appellants in their pleadings in reply, while endorsing the
Policy for the year 2015-16 and the reservation of25% of the molasses
produced during that year, did illter alia underline as well that in terms
of the Act, the State Government was authorised and empowered to
1
    c2001J s sec 33.8                                                          H
1102          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 10 S.C.R.



A direct/regulate, control, storage. supply, gradation of price of molasses.
  It was elaborated that the aim and object of the fixation of reservation
  and to maintain the exist ratio of molasses was to ensure proper availability
  of the commodity for the country liquor distilleries each month so that
  the revenue earned by the State from country liquor was not adversely
  affected for the financial year 2016-17. It underlined that the Minimum
B
  Guarantee Quantity of country liquor in the financial year 2016-17 was
  about 32.02 crore bulk liter by which a revenue of Rs. 8037.42 crores
  was likely to be generated and for that purpose, the estimated requirement
  of molasses was 52 lakhs quintal. That supply of quality molasses of the
  above amount was uncompromisingly essential to make available to the
C public, safe and potable country liquor at an appropriate price, so as to
  guard against consumption of spurious stuff manufactured illegally and
  prevent fatal accidents and injuries to public health, has been emphasized.
  The appellants thus, sought to flag that the regulatory regime for
  reservation of molasses for production of country liquor was not only to
D generate revenue for the State Government but was also comprehended
  in the interest of public life, health and safety. It was highlighted as well
  that in absence of reservation of molasses, the sugar mills would be at
  Iibe1ty to hold the stock thereof in order to earn high profit at the end of
  the year or to convert it into free sale stock which would dislocate the
  supply to the country liquor manufacture distilleries, thus adversely
E affecting the availability of the safe and quality country liquor for the
  general pubic. After referring to the statistics pertaining to the respondent
  company with regard, amongst others to its opening balance, production
  and captive consumption over a period of four years from 2012-13 to
  2015-16, the appellants endeavoured to demonstrate that in all these
  years, the respondent company had been left with surplus stock/balance
F stock after utilising the rest for its captive consumption. Due reference
  was made as well of the Policy and in particular of the computation of
  balance stock to conclude that the impugned action was unassailable.
         10. The High Court, as the impugned judgment would attest,
  premised its determination, chiefly on the decision of this Court in
G Dhampur Sugar Mills', which, as would unfold hereinafter, was founded
  on the policy distinctly different from one, formulated for the Molasses
  Year 2015-16. Be that as it may, according to the High Court, the Policy
  was based on the directions given by this Court in the above
  pronouncement. It found fault with the impugned order dated 27. 7.2016
H requiring compliance by the respondent of the Policy, as devoid ofreasons.
     STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS v. MAWANA                           1103
           SUGARS LIMITED [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

It perceived the stand of the appellants, to be that the entire excess A
stock had to be reserved by the respondent for supply to the distilleries
manufacturing liquor, without however referring to in particular the
concept of balance stock, as explained in the Policy and held, in terms
of the decision in l)hampur Sugar Mills 1, that the respondent was
required to reserve 25% only of the excess stock left over after its B
captive consumption. It noted the figures representing the opening stock,
production of molasses and the captive consumption thereof for the
Molasses Year 2015-16, which was based on the actual consumption in
the previous Molasses Year 2014-15 and calculated the balance stock
for the Molasses Year 2015-16 to be 15,994 M.T. and held that the
respondent would be required to reserve 25% thereof only for supply to C
the distilleries, manufacturing country liquor. The contention of the
respondent that it may be allowed to consume the entire stock of molasses
 was rejected and in absence of particulars furnished by it, accepted its
captive consumption to be as in the Molasses Year 2014-15. Accordingly,
the respondent was required to retain 25% of its balance stock, after its D
captive consumption, to be reserved for supply to the distilleries
 manufacturer country liquor as per the Policy. To reiterate, the appellant
 was also granted the liberty to offer to the authorities concerned, in
 case, it required further quantity of molasses for its captive consumption
 during the Molasses Year 2015-16.
         11. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the appellants E
has emphatically asserted that the impugned judgment proceeds on an
erroneous reading of the decision rendered by this Court in Dhampur
Sugar Mills 1 and a patently wrong interpretation of the PoliCy and is
thus, clearly unsustainable in law and on facts. The learned senior counsel
maintained that the policy analysed and adverted to by this Court in F
Dhampur Sugar Mills 1 was distinctly different in its text and tenor
from the Policy in question, for which no analogy therefrom was possible.
According to him, the Policy, though at places, has reference of the
observations in Dhampur Sugar Mills 1, it stands on its own strength
and if correctly interpreted, would squarely defeat the asse1tions of the
respondent and the findings recorded in the impugned judgment. The G
decision given in Dhampur Sugar Mills 1 has no decisive bearing at all
on the Poli~y and thus, the starting premise of the impugned judgment is
patently flawed, rendering it indefensible, he urged. Apart from reiterating
the underlying objectives of the Policy in espousal of public interest as
 pleaded, Mr. Dwivedi, referring to the concept of balance stock, as H
1104             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 10 S.C.R.


 A     explicated in the Policy, insisted that a manufacturer of molasses. was at
       the outset, obligatorily required to keep apart 25% of its total production
       in the Molasses Year 2015-2016, to be adjusted, eventually subject to its
       captive consumption for its distillery and in the face of such unequivocal
       mandate thereof, any interpretation either contrary thereto or in
       unwarranted moderation thereof, is untenable in law.
 B
           12. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the respondent
   in confutation of the above, argued that the elucidation of the policy
   offered by the High Court, based on the enunciation in Dhampur Sugar
   Mills' is unimpeachable. According to her, the interpretation of the Policy,
   as extended by the appellants, besides being utterly wrong, if accepted,
 c would amongst others leave the respondent at the end of Molasses Year
   2015-16, without any stock whatsoever of molasses to embark upon its
   manufacturing process for the next year, which is inconceivable. She
   has urged that the profuse reference of the decision in Dhampur Sugar
   Mills' in the Policy makes it abundantly clear that the exposition of the
 D policy, as made therein, was consciously made applicable to the Policy
   involved and thus the respondent at the most in terms thereof was required
   to reserve only 25% of the stock of molasses left in balance after its
   captive consumption to the fullest extent.
            13. The disparate pleadings and the contrasting assertions have .
 E received our due consideration. As a plain reading of the impugned
   judgment would testify, that it is substantially structured on the rendering
   in Dhampur Sugar Mills 1, apt it would be at the outset to advert thereto,
   so as· to clear the deck for the ultimate adjudication.
           14. The parties are not at issue that the Act has installed a legal
 F regime whereunder the State Government may issue necessary orders/
   directions for control, storage, st1pply, gradation and prices of molasses
   and that the.Policy and the orders impugned do not suffer from aoy lack
   of authority. To reiterate, neither the validity of the Act. nor that of the
   Policy has been assailed and hence, the instant exercise is limited to the
   dissension on the interpretation of the Policy in its application to the
 G respondent and other sugar mills equally situated. To address the issue
   and having regard to the pre-supposition on which the impugned judgment
   has been passed, it would be expedient to note in seriatim, the rendition
   in Dllampur Sugar Mills 1 and the relevant portions of'the Policy
   2015-2016.
 H
      STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS v. MAWANA                                  1105
            SUGARS LIMITED [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

         15. In Dhampur Sugar Mills 1, the assailment pertained to an            A
 order of the State ofU.P. directing the appellant under the Uttar Pradesh
 Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (abbreviated as "the Act") to supply
 20% of the molasses produced by its sugar mills for manufacturing
 "country-made liquor" by distilleries for the financial years 2003-04 and
 2004-05 as well as the consequential show cause notices for prosecution,        B
 as upheld by the jurisdictional High Court. The appellant did have a
 sugar mill in the State together with a distillery which manufactured
 ethyl alcohol, used for blending of petrol, manufacture of chemicals and
 rectified spirit for medicines. It also had similar business at other places.
 The main contention of the appellant was that though it was producing
 molasses, the entire production was required by it for captive consumption      C
 and even that was not sufficient for which it, with the permission of
 government, had been importing the commodity from other states as
 well as from other countries. It therefore reasoned that as it was left
 with no balance or extra stock of molasses for supply to the distilleries
 manufacturing country-made liquor, the authorities could not compel it          D
 to supply molasses vide the impugned orders and repudiated the impugned
 action to be illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and also being violative
 of Articles 14 and 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution.
         16. In refutation, the plea of the government was that in
  accordance with the provisions of the Act, it was open to the authorities
  to ask the appellant to supply 20% ·molasses for the purpose of E
  manufacturing country-made liquor and thus the impugned orders were
  perfectly in accord with the mandate of the enactment and by no means
  could be termed as illegal and unlawful. The High Court, to reiterate,
  held that the reservation for 20% of molasses and the directions issued
  to the appellant to supply such stock for manufacturing country-made F
· liquor were neither contrary to law nor against public policy and thus
  rejected the impugnment of the appellant.
          17. Before this Court, it was principally canvassed that the
 impugned order(s) were expressly clear and required a sugar mill to
 res~rve 20% of the molasses from the balance stock i.e. the left over G
 after .the actual consumption by the industry, for manufacturing country
 liquor and as the appellant did not have such balance stock of molasses,
 even for its captive consumption and had to import molasses from
 other states in the country and abroad, it could not be compelled to reserve
 20% molasses for manufacturing country liquor by other distilleries.
                                                                                 H
1106              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 10 S.C.R.


 A             18. This Court, while noticing that the constitutional validity of the
       Act had not been challenged, the same having been upheld earlier in
       SlEL Limited vs. Union of lndia1 wherein the statute was held to be
       within the legislative competence of the State and also not inconsistent
       with the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951, noted further
       clause (3) of the order 9.6.2004 relied upon by the High Court to partially
 B
       uphold the challenge. The, original text of the order impugned being in
       Hindi, the translation thereof, as referred to in the judgment, is extracted
       herein below:
                "25. The English translation supplied by the appellant atAnnexure
                P-3 reads thus:
 c
                "From the balance stock of molasses with each sugar mill. 20°;.,
                of molasses shall be reserved for the distilleries manufacturing
                country liquor. The sugar mills having their own distilleries shall
                not be covered within this reservation to the extent that after the
                actual consumption of molasses in their captive distillery, 20%
D               reservation shall be applicable on the balance stock."
           19. Having regard to the above quoted text, this Court ruled that
   the same applied only to the excess stock of molasses, i.e., molasses
   which was in excess of and not used for captive consumption by the
   sugar factory and was thus "the balance stock" and sustained the
 E assertion of the appellant to that extent. This Court minuted as well the
   plea of the appellant that it had no excess stock of molasses and had to
   import the said commodity from other sources to meet its requirement
   for manufacturing industrial alcohol, after obtaining such permission
   granted by the Central Government as well as the State Government.
 p This Court therefore declared that the case of the appellant in the singular
   fact situation as projected, did not fall within the purview of clause (3) as
   above and, therefore, could not have been invoked by the authorities
   against it. It therefore, determined that the High Court was not right in
   holding that all sugar mills were bound to supply 20% of molasses under
   Clause (3) of the Government Order 2004 irrespective of the stock
 G possessed. The other contentions addressed being not of any significance
   for the instant adjudication are not being adverted to. Suffice it to set-out
   hereinabove the operative portion of the decision as contained in
   paragraphs 53 and 54 thereof:

       2
H          0998)1sec26
     STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS v. MAWANA                                1107
           SUGARS LIMITED [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

       "53. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeal deserves    A
       to be allowed and the order of the High Court deserves to be
       set-aside. It is. accordingly. held that the directive issued by the
       respondents would not apply in case there is no balance stock
       of molasses with any sugar mill. The respondent authorities
       have no right to compel such sugar mills to supply 20% molasses        B
       for the purpose of manufacturing country liquor.
       54. We may, however, make one thing clear. As seen above,
       the assertion of the appellant was that it has no balance stock
       and even for its own requirement, it has to import molasses. On
       the other hand, the allegation of the respondents is that excess
       and btilance molasses was available with the appellant which it C
       had sold in open market. The High Court, in the impugned order
       has not decided the question finally. Quoting certain paragraphs
       from the writ petition, the High Court observed that there was
       no proper pleading and as such, the Court was not in a position
       to go into the question. It is, therefore, made clear that it is open D
       to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance
       with law on the basis of our decision and observation made in
       this judgment."
       20. The records testify that the said Policy 2015-16 was published
by a Circular/Communication No.39/2016/1501/E-2/Thirteen-2016-74/             E
2015 in vernacular and a translated copy thereof has been placed on
records and produced in course of the arguments. As it had been attested
on behalf of the appellants by Mr. Dwivedi ·that the document produced
at the hearing bears the correct translated version of the original, the
same would be referred to. The relevant excerpt therefrom is quoted
hereinbelow:                                                                  F

        "In this regard, I have been directed to say that suggestions/
        proposals received from you in pursuance to the aforesaid letters
        dated 9'h November, 2015; 20'" January, 2016; 2"<lFebruary, 2016;
        2"<l April, 2016; 4"' May, 2016 and 23'<l May, 2016, were placed
        in the meetings of the Molasses Advisory Committee headed by          G
        Chief Secretary held on 31.10.2015 and 15.03.2016 and the same
        were considered in the said meetings and in furtherance of the
        same, following Molasses Policy has been framed for the year
        2015-16:
                                                                              H
1108      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2017] IO S.C.R.


 A      (I) Every sugar mill in the molasses year 2015-16 will keep 25%
        of the molasses. produced. reserved and those sugar mills whose
        distilleries are situated in the State will aUPIY following reservation
        on the quantity of molasses produced by them in the year2015-16:
        (i) If the balance stock of the group of captive sugar mills exceeds
 B      reserved quantity (25%). then in that case full reservation shall
        apply to them with effect from the commencement of the
        molasses year as per directions contained in paragraph 47 of the
        Order dated 24.09.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.4466 of2007
        titled M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited Versus State of Uttar
        Pradesh and Others. Because it will not create any shortage in
 c      their own consumption of the molasses (in view of the quantity
        of self consumption of the molasses year 2014-15);
         (ii) Whereas in case the balance stock of the group of captive
         sugar mills is lesser than the reserved quantity. then in that case
       • reservation shall apply to them with effect from commencement
 D       of the molasses year and quantity of reservation shall be limited
         to the quantity of balance stock as it will not result in any shortage
         of their self-consumption (in view of the quantity of self
         consumption of the molasses year 2014-15) as per directions
         contained in paragraph 46 of the Order dated 24.09 .2007 passed
 E       in Civil Appeal No.4466/07- titled Mis Dhampur Sugar Mills
         Limited versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. Because it
         will not create any shortage in their own consumption of the
         molasses (in view of the quantity of self consumption of the
         molasses year 2014-15);
 F      (iii) Whereas in case the balance stock of the group of captive
        sugar mills is nil i.e. to say that their consumption of molasses
        exceeds the quantity of molasses available to them (self-
        consumption based on molasses year2014-15), then in that case
        no reservation shall apply to them as per directions contained in
        paragraph 46 of the Order dated 24.09.2007 passed in Civil
 G      Appeal No.4466/2007- titled M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited
        Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.
        Determination of the balance stock:
        Balance stock has been elaborated by the Honorable Supreme
        Court in para 20 of its Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2007
 H
    STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & OTHERS v. MAWANA                               1109
          SUGARS LIMITED [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

       passed in Civil Appeal No.4466/2007- titled M/s Dhampur Sugar        A
       Mills Limited Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, which
       reads as under -
         "In our opinion, however, Clause (3) applies only to excess
         stock of molasses that is. molasses which is in excess of and
         not used for captive consumption by sugar factory and is thus      B
         balance stock."
       Therefore, balance stock for the molasses year 2015-16 =
       unreserved preliminary stock of the group of mills in the molasses
       year 2015-16 +production in the molasses year 2015-16-self
       consumption of molasses in the molasses year 2015-16 (equivalent     c
       to self-consumption of molasses up to 31.10.2015 in the molasses
       year 2014-15).
         (2). The aforesaid percentage of reservation is fixed with the
         condition that availability and necessity of molasses will be
         reviewed after every quarter and if there occurs any change D
         (for increase or decrease) in the percentage of reservation due
         to availability of molasses and necessity of country liquor, then
         State Government will take an appropriate decision regarding
         change in the reservation percentage of the molasses, after
         considering each and every fact in detail."
                                                                            E
        21. It would be apparent from the quoted text that for the Molasses
Year 2015-16, every sugar mill, at the first place, would have to keep
25% of the molasses produced, reserved and those sugar mills, whose
distilleries are situated in the State, would apply the following norms of
reservation:
                                                                            F
         (a) If the balance stock exceeds the reserved quantity (25%),
         then in that case, full reservation would apply to them w.e.f. the
         commencement of the molasses year.
        (b) In case the balance stock is less than the reserved quantity
        then, reservation would apply w.e.f. the commencement of the        G
        molasses year, but would be limited to the quantity of balance
        stock.
        (c) If the balance stock is nil i.e if the captive consumption of
        molasses exceeds the quantity available to them, no reservation
        would apply.
                                                                            H
1110             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 10 S.C.R.


 A            22. As all the clauses would demonstrate. reference of paragraphs
       46 and 47 of the decision in Dlzampur Sugar Mills 1 has been referred
       to, highlighting that in all the eventualities, the captive consumption of
       molasses by the sugar mills would thereby not be curtailed or prejudicially
       affected.
 B           23. With reference to "balance stock" as well, in the decision in
       Dhampur Sugar Mills 1, following observation in paragraph 20·
       (corresponds to para 27 of the reported judgment, as above) has been
       alluded to:
               "In our opinion, however, Clause (3) applies only to excess stock
c              of molasses, that is, molasses which is in excess of and not used
               for captive consumption by sugar factory and is thus the balance
               stock."
         24. The Policy determined the balance stock as hereunder:
  Balance stock for the Molasses Year 2015-16 =unreserved preliminary
D stock of the group of mills in the Molasses Year 2015-16 +production in
  the Molasses Year 2015-16 - self-consumption of molasses in the
  Molasses Year 2015-16 (equivalent of self-consumption of molasses up
  to 31.10.2015 in the Molasses Year 2014-15).
          25. Thus the balance stock forthe purpose of the Policy in essence
E is the stock that would be left over after utilization of the commodity for
  captive consumption in the Molasses Year 2015-16 from the sum total of
  the unreserved preliminary produce of the same molasses year and the
  production thereof in the said year. The computation of balance stock
  though relevant to eventually decide as to the extent of reservation that
  would be effective to ascertain the volume of supply to other distilleries
F manufacturing country-made liquor, it however does not in any way
  support the contention of the respondent that irrespective of the
  eventualities in the aforementioned clauses (a), (b) and (c), the reservation
  would be of 25'Vo only of such balance stock and not otherwise. This is
  in view of the unambiguous prescript of the Policy that the reservation
G would be of25% of the molasses produced, which by no means, can be
  construed to connote that such reservation had been contemplated to be
  only of the balance stock left over after the captive consumption of the
  sugar mill(s) concerned. Such a construction would be a total misreading
  of the Policy and would border on perversity.

H
     STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS v. MAWANA                               1111
           SUGARS LIMITED [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

        26. To recount, clause (3) of the order dated 09.06.2004, which      A
fell for scrutiny of this Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills' was in following
terms:
        "25. The English translation supplied by the appellant at Annexure
        P-3 reads thus:
          "From the balance stock of molasses with each· sugar mill,         B
          20% of molasses shall be reserved for the distilleries
          manufacturing country liquor. The sugar mills having their own
          distilleries shalt not be covered within this reservation to the
          extent that after the actual consumption of molasses in their
          captive distillery, 20% reservation shall be applicable on the
          balance stock."                                                    C
        27. This is both in text and content totally dissimilar to the above
excerpt extracted from the Policy for the Molasses Year 2015-16.
Whereas in the order under challenge in Dhampur Sugar Mills'~ it is
crystal clear that the policy intended reservation to the extent of 20% of
the molasses from the balance stock with the sugar mill, in apparent D
contradistinction, in the Policy for the Molasses Year 2015-16, the mandate
is for 25% reservation of the total molasses produced. The adjustment,
if any, in the extent of reservation to be eventually made depending on
the quantum of balance stock, in our comprehension, would not alter the
essence of the Pol icy in the manner as pleaded by the respondent. The
                                                                               E
pith and purport of the two policies, being strikingly at variance, no analogy
is;permissible.
         28. A plain reading of paragraphs 46/47 of the decision in
 Dhampur Sugar Mills 1, (as referred to the Policy) which in its reported
 version in (2007) 8 sec 338, correspond to paragraphs 53 & 54
 authenticate the above deduction. In the overall context, we are F
 abundantly clear that such reference was unwarranted and, in any case,
 had been made only to indicate the notion that physically the balance
 stock would be the stock that would be left over after the captive
 consumption of molasses by the sugar mill concerned and has no bearing
 at all on the computation of balance stock as envisaged in the Policy and G
 and in no manner would guide the interpretation thereof. In that view of
 the matter, the presupposition of the High Court that the Policy for the
 Molasses Year 2015-16 was based on the decbon in Dhampur Sugar
·Mills' is patently incorrect. Such policies being an annual event, contingent
 on contemporaneous exigencies and within the realm of executive
 discernment, the High Court, in our estimate, had fallen in gross error in H
I 112                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017) IO S.C.R.


 A proceeding on that premise and issuing the co'nsequential directions as
   made. Noticeably. the Policy consciously underlines that in any event
   thereby, the captive consumption of molasses by the sugar mills is not
   affected at all, so much so that if the balance stock is more than the
   extent of reservation, the whole of it would apply, but if the balance
   stock is less than the quantity to be reserved, the reservation would
 B
   work only to the extent of the balance stock and not in excess thereof.
   As the balance stock, if any, conceptually would be the residue after the
   utilization by way of captive consumption, in absence of the challenge to
   the Policy to be illegal, unfair, unjust, unreasonable or unconstitutional,
   the plea of the respondent that the reservation is unmistakably limited to
 C 25% of the balance stock under all situations is visibly flawed and
   fallacious. The measure of the captive consumption for the Molasses
   Year 2015-16, on the basis of such utilization for the Molasses Year
   2014-15, in absence of any overwhelming material to the contrary, also
   cannot be faulted with.
D                29. In the wake up of the above, we are of the unhesitant opinion
        that the impugned judgment being based on a total misreading of the
        Policy for the Molasses Year 2015-16 and also of the verdict in Dhampur
        Sugar Mills' in its application to the attendant facts and circumstances,
        it is clearly insupportable and unsound in law and is thus liable to be set
        aside, which.we hereby do.
E
               30. As a consequence, the operative directions contained therein
        are also annulled. The appellants would ensure that the Policy is
        implemented in its fetter and spirit. The respondent would abide by the
        same and extend its cooperation without fail. The appeal is allowed. No
        costs.
 F

        Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.