IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. Nos.19829 of 2000 and 3241 of 2001 1. Villupuram District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Limited, No.TND 495 Rep. by Managing Director, Vazuthareddi P.O., Villupuram .. Petitioner in 19829 of 2000. 2. The Salem District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Limited, ED.912 Rep. by Managing Director, Sithanoor, Salem .. Petitioner in 3241 of 2001. Vs. 1. M/s.Hatsun Agro Products Ltd., (Dairy Division) 5A, Vijayaraghava Road, I Floor, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. 2. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 3. The Controller, Milk and Milk Product Order (MMPO), Ministry of Agriculture Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 4. The Director (Dairy Development) and Central Registering Authority, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Special Commissioner For Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai – 600 051. .. Respondents in both the Petitions Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the order of the 2nd respondent in Ref.No.29-4/98 DP dated 06.10.2000, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in Ref.No.29-10/99 DP dated 09.03.2000 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan For R1 : Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy Senior Counsel For Mr.Ayyathurai For R2 to R5 : Mr.A.S.Vijaya Raghavan Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel O R D E R This judgement shall dispose off W.P.No.19829 of 2000 and W.P.No.3241 of 2001, as the common question of law and facts are raised in these writ petitions. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 09.03.2000 passed by the the Controller of Milk and Milk Product Order and confirmed by the Secretary to Government of India, vide order dated 06.10.2000. 3. The order dated 06.10.2000 was passed in appeals filed under Clause-22 of the Milk and Milk Product Order, 1992, by the respondent no.1 and Special Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, Chennai, against the order of the Controller dated 09.03.2000. 4. M/s.Hatsun Agro Products Limited, respondent no.1 filed an application on 22.01.1999, for enhancement of Milk Processing Capacity for their plant in Salem District. The application was rejected by the Central Registering Authority, vide order dated 23.09.1999. The reason for rejecting the application was the non availability of marketable surplus of milk shed area, proposed in the application and also the inadequate capacity of Effluent Treatment Plant to handle the existing processing capacity of 1.3 lakh litres per day. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In the appeal, filed against the order, the Controller, vide order dated 09.03.2000, allowed enhancement in the processing capacity from 1.3llpd to 3 llpd and further allowed M/s.Hatsun Agro Products Limited to collect milk from those villages of districts Villupuram and Cuddalore, which were not covered by the Diary Co- operative Societies. The additional capacity utilisation was made subject to installation of the Effluent Treatment Plant. 6. As already observed above, the writ petitions have been filed against the order of Controller and that of Secretary in appeal, the operative part of which reads as under: "The first question for determination is regarding the ETP of M/s. HAPL. TNPCB, through their letter dated 24.07.2000, have intimated that "...the unit of M/s.Hatsun Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., Salem District has provided fully functional Effluent Treatment to enable the processing of 1.3 llpd confirming to irrigation standards instead of inland water surface standards stipulated by the Board...." Further TNPCB through a letter dated 18.08.2000 have intimated that the ETP at the dairy plant owned by M/s.HAPL conforms to irrigation standards prescribed by the Board for the initial capacity of 1.3 llpd and for expanded capacity of 2.75 llpd. TNPCB vide order dated 14.08.2000 have consented for the change to the adoption of irrigation standards instead of inland water surface standards. The letters of TNPCB clearly indicate that the ETP at the dairy plant owned by M/s.HAPL has been allowed by TNPCB to conform to irrigation standards and the capacity of the ETP is 2.75 llpd. This position has not been contested by the Second Appellant. In view of these circumstances, the CRA can now proceed to issue registration for the enhanced capacity of 3.0 llpd allowed by the Controller. 5. The next question for consideration is with regard to marketable surplus of milk. The Controller in para 8 of his order, on the basis of information received from the Second Appellant, has come to the conclusion that the districts of Trichy, Villupuram & Cuddalore have more than 8 llpd of surplus milk. The finding has not been challenged before me. The Controller has further directed that M/s.HAPL "is allowed to collect milk from those villages of districts Villupuram & Cuddalore, which are not covered by the Dairy Co-operative Societies". This should provide adequate safeguard to the Co-operatives functioning in the area. M/s.HAPL had, in their appeal, petition, sought modification of this condition imposed by the Controller, but in the course of the hearing before me, they agreed to withdraw this plea. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Some other issues have been raised by the Special Commissioner for Milk Production & Dairy Development. These issues are, however, not germane to the present appeal. 7. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. The CRA will forthwith issue registration to M/s.HAPL for a processing capacity of 3.0 llpd. The condition imposed by the Controller on the villages from which M/s.HAPL will be allowed to collect milk wil stand." 7. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the orders, have challenged these on the ground, that impugned orders are contrary to Section 5 r/w Section 5(8) of the Milk and Milk Product Order, 1992, which provides preferential treatment to the Co-operative Sector. 8. The challenge is also on the ground that the orders impugned violated Section 11 of the Order, as it permitted the respondent no.1 to collect milk beyond milk shed area, as mentioned in the registration certificate. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that interim orders were passed by this Court, to protect interest of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions. 10. It is not in dispute that provision, made in the "Milk and Milk Product Order, 1992", giving preferential treatment to the Co- operative Dairy Sector and allocation of Milk Shed area for collection of milk, stand deleted now, therefore, there is no bar to collect milk freely. Consequently, the writ petition filed to challenge the order granting permission for expansion of capacity of the respondent no.1 cannot be said to be in violative of the provisions of Milk order, which may give locus standi to petitioners to challenge the impugned orders. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that there are serious irregularity in running of plant by the respondent no.1, therefore, status report was called by this Court. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that as per the status report, it was pointed out that Effluent Treatment Plant was not properly functioning and that there was certain other irregularities, but the irregularities pointed out in the status report have been corrected. Now, the plant is functioning properly. 13. In any case, this is not for this Court to look into this aspect in these writ petitions, as the remedy for violation of running of plant lies somewhere else. It is always open to authorities to take action against any industry violating provisions of law, by adopting proper procedure. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed off, as having been rendered infructuous. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. The Controller, Milk and Milk Product Order (MMPO), Ministry of Agriculture Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 3. The Director (Dairy Development) and Central Registering Authority, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 4. The Special Commissioner For Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai – 600 051. + 1 CC to Mr.V.Ayyathurai Advocate SR.10885 + 1 CC to Mrs. Vijayakumarai Natarajan, Advocate SR.10808 + 1 CC to Mr.A.S.Vijaya Raghavan, Advocate SR.10460 NM(CO) VC(4.3.2011) W.P. Nos.19829 of 2000 and 3241 of 2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/