As per case facts, Shivashakti Sugars Limited (appellant) sought to establish a new sugar factory. An existing factory, Raibagh Sahakari, non-operational and under liquidation, was within proximity. Appellant received 'no ... objection' and proceeded with its Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum (IEM) and obtained permissions, including a distance certificate. The Sugarcane (Control) Amendment Order, 2006, then mandated a 15 km minimum distance. Later, Raibagh Sahakari was leased to Shree Renuka Sugar Limited (respondent), who challenged the appellant's factory, citing distance violations. The High Court ruled against the appellant, de-recognizing its IEM and extensions. The question arose whether Raibagh Sahakari qualified as an "existing sugar factory" under Clause 6A, given its non-operational state, and if the distance rule applied. Finally, the Supreme Court held that Raibagh Sahakari was not an "existing sugar factory" at the time due to prolonged non-operation, rendering the distance requirement inapplicable. Considering substantial investments, employment, and public interest, the appellant's factory was permitted to continue, with a condition to re-allot 14 villages to Shree Renuka Sugar Limited.