Judgment:
S. Chatterji, A.C.J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries Employees' Union represented by its General Secretary Shri Raghunath Misra seeking the following reliefs:
(i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Chief Minister/State Government allowing M/s. Surya Sugar Ltd., to set up a Sugar Factory in the Ganjam District within the area of operation of ASCOSUGAR;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to allow any sugar industry to be set up in the Ganjam District within the area of operation of Aska Sugar and prevent them from interfering with the area of operation of the ASCOSUGAR in any manner whatsoever;
(iii) and pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
2. The writ petition was presented on January 24, 1995. On February 24, 1995 an interim order was obtained that no final decision in the matter shall be taken until further orders. The interim order was allowed to continue till disposal of the writ petition and Misc. case No.481/95 was disposed of. This was on July 7, 1995.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that there is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable decision of the State Government allowing opposite party No.4 M/s. Surya Sugar Ltd. to set up a sugar factory within the area of operation of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd. and transferring a part of the area to the proposed sugar industry contrary to the earlier order dated July 12, 1994 and in violation of the principle of natural justice and in spite of adverse reports by the different departments against setting up of another sugar industry within the area of operation of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd., which is highly detrimental to the interest of the Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd. and its employees and is also against public interest. It is contended that the members of the petitioner-union who are more than 780 in number are panic stricken by the illegal decision of the Chief Minister followed by the State Government to allow opposite Party No. 4 to install a sugar factory at Bhanjanagar within the area of operation of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries. It is alleged that the decision has been taken illegally, arbitrarily and unreasonably and with mala fide. intention violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is placed on record that the petitioner is a registered union and the only union of the employees of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd. It was registered in 1962 under the Trade Unions Act. It is highlighted that keeping in view the annual requirement of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries, an area was reserved for the said industry, which was duly notified on July 12, 1994. The said reserved area comprised Ber-hampur. Chhatrapur and Bhanjanagar Sub-divisions of the District of Ganjam. It is asserted that the petitioner learnt that IPICOL, has got a letter of intent for setting up a sugar factory at Bhanjanagar through M/s. Surya Sugars Ltd., and the are aproposed to be given to that sugar factory is well within the area of operation of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries. It is further asserted that on April 13, 1994 the Managing Director of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries wrote to the Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Industry Department, stating about the expansion of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd. which was in full progress and scheduled to be commissioned in September, 1994 raising its crushing capacity from 1219 TCD to 2500 TCD. However, apprehending danger of having M/s. Surya Sugars Ltd. in the area of operation of an existing sugar industry, especially one in the co-operative sector, which would render both industries sick, the Secretary to Government, Co-operative Department, wrote to the Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of Industries, Government of India, on April 29, 1994, requesting to take suitable action in regard to the letter of intent issued in favour of M/s. Surya Sugars Ltd.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner-union has been anxiously watching the matter keenly as any adverse decision would directly affect very adversely the present conditions of service, wages, increments, allowances, bonus, promotion, fringe benefits and such other facilities and amenities and may also lead to retrenchment and closure. Stating all these facts in greater detail, enclosing several correspondences as annexures and demonstrating the apprehensions and anxieties, the petitioner-union has come to the writ Court seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
After Stating the stand of opposite parties and arguments of both sides it was held :
5. Mr. Ratho has submitted that the workers have locus standi to come to the writ Court to seek the reliefs. In this connection, he has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1981-LLJ-209) (A.B.S.K.Sanch (Riv.) v. Union of India). He has also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1983-I-LLJ-45) (National Textile Workers Union v P.R. Ramakrishnan) and AIR 1991 SC 1902 (Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muriappa). The decision of this Court reported in AIR 1988 Ori.273 (Pratap Kishore Misra v. State of Orissa) is also relied on in this regard. According to Mr. Ratho, the workers have a legitimate expectation and the State Government cannot take an arbitrary decision affecting this expectation. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 155 (Navjyoti Co-op.Group Housing Society v. Union of India). Mr. Ratho has emphasised that there is arbitrariness in making the decision to allot the same area to another industry. Such a decision should be struck down by this Court. In this regard, he has referred to the decisions reported in (1984-II-LLJ-186)(SC) (AX. Kalra v. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.) and (1989-II-LLJ-324) (Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.S.Pudani). In the latter decision it has been held that the judicial control over the fact expanding name of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into water-tight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available 'to reach injustice wherever it is found. Mr. Ratho has also drawn the attention of the Court to the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1995 (5) SCC 457 (Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee and Ors.). In paragraph 14 it is observed that the extraordinary complexity of modern litigation requires the Judge not merely to declare the rights to citizens but also to mould the relief warranted under given facts and circumstances and often command the executive and other agencies to enforce and give effect to the order, writ or direction or prohibit them to do unconstitutional acts. In this ongoing complex of adjudicatory process, the role of the Judge is not merely to interpret the law but also to lay new forms of law and to mould the law to suit the changing social and economic scenario to make the ideals enshrined in the Constitution meaningful and real. Therefore, the Judge is required to take judicial notice of the social and economic ramification consistent with the theory of law. Thereby, the society demands active judicial roles which formerly were considered exceptional but now a routine.
6. Learned Advocate-General of the State appearing for opposite party No. 1 has made arguments by referring to the pleadings of the parties and to the various annexures. With all responsibility and having proper instruction, he has submitted that the decision of the State Government, if any, taken to issue the letter of intent in favour of opposite party No. 4, M/s. Surya Sugar, and to modify the earlier notification as to the area of operation of Aska Co-operative Sugar Factory will not actually affect the running of the existing industry, its production, procurement and the continuity of employment of the workers concerned. He has further submitted that the apprehension of the workers' union as canvassed in the present case is not genuine. It is submitted that a proper study has been made and if necessary further study will be made as to the present rate of procurement of sugarcane from the field, the needs of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industry, the rate of production etc. The security of employment of the workers will not be affected by any stretch of imagination if another industry is set up consistent with the guidelines given by the Government of India, i.e. to set up a new sugar industry beyond the minimum 15 kms radius. He argues that in fact Surya Sugar Industry will not be set up within the prohibitory area of 15 Kms. from the existing industry, i.e., Aska Co-operative Sugar Factory. The question of allotment of four blocks within Bhanjanagar' area for procurement of sugarcane, as proposed to be allotted in favour of Surya Sugar, oppo-sites. party No.4, will be considered in proper perspective. But, by the said allotment, the existing infrastructural facilities of Aska Co-operative Sugar Factory will not be affected even remotely. It is argued that it is only an emotional submission that as other industries have become sick in different areas, there is possibility and probability of sickness of the existing industry if steps are taken to set up a new industry at Bhanjanagar.
7. Learned counsel appearing for opposites. party No. 4 has contested the writ petition by adopting the same argument as advanced by the learned Advocate-General, both on points of fact and law. Besides, he has submitted that the acts done and/or caused to have done to permit opposite party No. 4 to set up a new sugar industry with the feeding capacity to procure sugarcane is not detrimental to the interest of the existing industry. The allegations are vague, indefinite, inconsistent and without any merit. There is obvious prayer for dismissal of writ petition.
8. We have patiently heard the lengthy arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, opposite party No. 1 the State, and opposite, party No. 4, M/s. Surya Sugar Ltd. We have perused the materials on record and have also gone through the reported decisions cited from the bar, as indicated above. Regard being had to the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Aska Co-operative Sugar Industry is a running industry having a large number of employees. It is a profitable concern and it has its future prospects and further potentiality to expand. In the present set-up and in case there is threat to closure of the industry by any action other than in public interest, certainly it comes within the scope of judicial scrutiny, if situation so demands. In this context, the locus standi of the employees union protecting the interest of the industry cannot be lost sight of. The employees working in the industry and/or their union are certainly entitled to ventilate their grievance and ask for judicial scrutiny if any decision is taken to affect the industry instantly or remotely, explicitly or implicitly. Ex facie, the petitioner has successfully pointed out that by an earlier notification, the operational area to procure sugarcane for the running sugar industry, i.e., Aska Co-operative Sugar Factory, was reserved. It is also pointed out that Bhanjanagar area is the most fertile area to provide sugarcane and it is very much helpful for running of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industry. The petitioner has further pointed out that a private industry is being set up and/or letter of intent is being issued carving out the area from Bhanjanagar itself and four blocks which were the most potential area for production of sugarcane are proposed to be allotted in favour of the new industry. True it is that as per the present Government policy of globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation, the State is free within the constitutional parameter to ask for private in-vestment and/or to extend employment opportunities for the benefit of the people of the State and for economic benefit of the State itself. Industrial expansion by way of setting up new industries and to create employment opportunities and to have industries with less environmental hazards are neither opposed nor thwarted. The only judicial scrutiny is whether the decision taken to set up a new industry carving out the area of operation from that of the existing industry of the peculiar nature is beneficial or prejudicial to the existing industry.
9. Considering all the aspects, we are of the view that the State is certainly free to permit setting up of new industries provided such decision is not contrary to law and inconsistent with the rights and privileges, if any, enjoyed by the existing industry. All that we feel assured by specific submission made by the learned Advocate-General with instruction from the State authorities is that even amendment of the earlier notification in order to demarcate the areas at Bhanjanagar in favour of the new industry likely to be set up by opposite party No. 4 will in no way affect the total procurement of sugarcane from all the areas available to the Aska Co-operative Sugar Factory. A fresh in- depth study should be made and a report should be obtained and/or steps should be taken specifically to see that by setting up the new industry of opposite party No.4 and by modifying the earlier notification to preserve the area, there is no adverse effect on the total procurement of sugarcane of Aska Co-operative Sugar Factory, its production and the interest of the employees concerned. If the existing procurement of sugarcane is not affected, then certainly the present unit cannot have any grievance that areas with better production of sugarcane are being taken away. We may observe further that if any area will be preserved in favour of Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries for cultivation of sugarcane to suffice the needs of the industry and also the areas will have the potentiality of better cultivation, the State will take such steps to give proper incentives to the farmers so that there will be no adverse effect on the procurement of raw materials for the existing industry. With all these things properly done, there will be no bar and/or impediment for the State to permit setting up of a new industry like opposite, party No.4. In case, however, by carving out the area of operation there is any adverse effect upon the procurement, production and employment condition of the existing industry, such steps should not be taken. A study must be made by the competent officials of the Agriculture Department, Industry Department and other experts in this connection, if necessary, and a report submitted and on the basis of such fresh report, further steps may be taken to permit opposite party No.4 to run the new industry with the help of the reserved portion at Bhanjanagar with four blocks as detailed in the writ petition.
10. With such observations, directions and/or guidelines, we dispose of the writ petition. No order as to costs.
P.K. Mohanty, J.
11. I agree.