ORDER
Aftab Alam, J.
1. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar. It has its sugar factory at Sasamusa in the district of Gopalganj. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the letters dated January 1 and January 6, 2005 (Annexures 2 and 1 respectively) issued by the Cane Officer, Motihari. By the impugned letters the petitioner was directed to immediately close down the sale centre (for purchase of sugar canes) set up by it in village Barharwa Khurd. According to the impugned letters the sale centre in village Barharwa Khurd was set up by the petitioner illegally and in violation of the statutory provisions. The petitioner was, therefore, warned and threatened that in case it did not close down the centre it would be shut down by use of force and action would be taken against the petitioner under Section 52 of the Bihar Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981.
2. The material facts giving rise to the controversy are simple and few and can be stated thus. By an order dated 29/30.9.2004 issued by the Cane Commissioner under Section 31 of the Act 23 villages of East Champaran District were reserved in favour of the petitioner company. The reservation of those 23 villages was made for the petitioner company in addition to the ‘traditional villages’ that are reserved to it every year. Another sugar company namely M/s. Eastern Sugar and Industries Limited filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 13608 of 2004 challenging the order of the Cane Commissioner under which the 23 villages of East Champaran were reserved for the petitioner. In that case an ex parte interim order was passed on 23.11.2004 staying the reservation of the 23 villages in question in the petitioner’s favour. The writ petition was finally dismissed (with costs) by order dated 20.12.2004 (Annexure 3) and the interim order of stay was consequently vacated.
3. As the crushing season this year was very brief and the crushing was not likely to go beyond first week of March 2005, the petitioner took immediate steps for setting-up a sale centre for purchase of sugar cane from those villages and in that regard it approached the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari for necessary permission. The Collector, East Champaran issued office order dated December 24, 2004 which was communicated to the petitioner under Memo No. 413; a photo-stat copy of this order is at Annexure 4. By this office order a number of sugar mills were given permission to set-up their respective sale centres at different places. The name of the petitioner company figures at Sl. Nos. 10 and 11 and it was accorded permission to set-up sale centres at Harpur and Barharwa Khurd. The office order in so far as the petitioner is concerned was worded as follows :
————————————————————————————-
Kramank Chini Mill Ka Naam Path Kraya Kendra Ka Naam Ganne Ki Anumanit
Matra (Lakh, Quintal
Main)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Sasamusa Chini Mill Harpur 0-30
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Barharwa Khurd 0-30
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The office order stipulated that the permission was given in anticipation of approval by the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
4. In pursuance of the permission accorded to it by order, dated 24.12.2004 the petitioner set-up its sale centre in village Barharwa Khurd but within seven days it received the impugned order from the Cane Officer, Motihari stating that the sale centre was set-up illegally and directing the petitioner for its closure.
5. Heard Mr. Raghib Ashsan, counsel for the petitioner and the JC to AAG I appearing for the State. In course of rival submissions, that on occasions tended to become heated and acrimonious, a number of points were raised but on hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record it appears to me that this writ petition is fit to be allowed on a simple point.
6. On behalf of the respondents it is not denied that by office order dated 24.12.2004 issued by the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari the petitioner was allowed to set-up a sale centre at Barharwa Khurd/Barwakanth Chapra, subject to approval of the Cane Commissioner. It may be noted here that from the photo-copy of the office order that was communicated to the petitioner it appears that in the order there was only the name of village Barharwa Khurd but in the annexure to the counter affidavit the place(s) where the petitioner was given permission to set-up sale centre is/are described as follows : Barharwa Khurd/Barwakanth Chapra. Even taking the annexure enclosed with the counter affidavit as the true version of the order, village Barharwa Khurd was clearly one of the two places where it was open to the petitioner to set-up the sale centre.
7. It is also undeniable that the office order dated 24.12.2004 was issued by the District Collector in exercise of powers under Section 29(1) of the Act.
8. On behalf of the respondents it is stated that after issuance of the order by the Collector the Cane Commissioner convened a meeting at Patna on 29.12.2004 at 2.30 p.m. for allotment of sites for setting-up sale centres by different sugar mills. A notice of this meeting was issued to the sugar companies on 28.12.2004 (Annexure A). It is further stated that the petitioner did not take part in the meeting which was held in its absence but in the presence of the representatives of the other sugar companies. On the basis of the deliberations in that meeting (the minutes of which are at Annexure-B) the Cane Commissioner issued an order, dated 30.12.2004 under which the petitioner was allotted villages Chand Saraiya/Jewdhar, Barwakanth Chapra, Harpur for setting-up its sale centres.
9. It is the case of the respondents that the sale centre set up by the petitioner at Barharwa Khurd was thus in violation of the order issued by the Cane Commissioner. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner set-up the sale centre in violation of the provisions of Rule 22 of the Bihar Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1978.
10. It is thus to be seen that the final allotment of places/villages for establishing sale centres was made by the Cane Commissioner on the basis of a meeting held on 29.12.2004 for which notices were issued to the concerned sugar companies on 28.12.2004. The meeting was held at Patna and the offices of the sugar companies are situate at distant places in North Bihar. Now, apart from the propriety and reasonableness of holding the meeting at a notice of 24 hours or may be even less, the question arises whether the notice was served upon the petitioner at all. In this regard the averment of the petitioner is very clear and definite in para 6 of its affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit of the respondents. It is stated as follows :
“6. That with regard to the statements made in para 6 it is stated that the notice dated 28.12.2004 for the meeting held on 29.12.2004 was neither sent nor served upon the petitioner nor the order dated 29.12.2004 as contained in memo No. 1762 dated 30.12.2004 (Annexure D) has yet been communicated to the petitioner. From the order as contained in Annexure D it does not appear that Respondent Cane Commissioner applied his mind either to accept or reject the order dated 24.12.2004 as contained in Annexure 4.”
11.” A copy of the rejoinder affidavit was served upon the State counsel on 8.2.2005 but when the case was finally heard on 15.2.2005 there was absolutely no material on record to show that the notice was in fact served upon the petitioner.
12. In the counter affidavit simply a copy of the notice is annexed as Annexure A, There is no postal receipt or peon-book or any office record showing the message being sent by fax or telephonically. Even after the rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner no document or even a scrap of paper was produced before the Court to show that the information about the meeting was given to the petitioner. In those circumstances it can only be held that the petitioner was not given, any information of the meeting and the place of the sale centre allotted to him by the Collector was altered behind his back and without giving him an opportunity to place his point of view. The petitioner was thus divested of his right in complete breach of the principles of natural justice.
13. The/respondents also cannot allege any contravention of 22 of the Rules. From the proceedings of the meeting, at Annexure B, it appears that the Cane Commissioner was fully aware of the allotments made by the Collector and he had in fact recommended to the Cane Commissioner to confirm those allotments. In the minutes of the meeting under the heading ‘Motihari Chini Mill’ it is stated as follows :
“…….ZILA PADADHIKARI, PURWI CHAMPARAN NE ZILE KE GANNE KE NISHPADAN HETU DINAK 21.12.2004 KO AAPNE KARYALAY KACH MAIN EK BAITHAK AAYOJIT KIYA, JISME SABHI SAMBANDHIT CHINI MILL KE PRATINIDHI EWAM SAWAYAM BHI BHAAG LIYA ZILA PADADHIKARI NEN SABHI CHINI MILL KE PRATINIDHIYON KO SUNNE KE UPRANT SABHI SAMBANDHIT CHINI MILLO KISHANO KE BYAPAK HIT MAIN AWAM IKHAYUKT BIHAR PATNA KE SWIKRITI Kl PRATYASHA MAIN IKH KRAYA KENDRA AWANTAN HETU EAK AADESH NIRGAT KIYA HAI. PATRANK 412 DINAK 24.12.2004 AUR JISHMEIN PRATILIPI IKHAYUKT BIHAR PATNA KO DETE HUAY UNSHE ANOMODAN HETU ANURODH KIYA HAI. IKH PADADHIKARI MOTIHARI DAWARA BHI ANUSHANSHA HAI Kl ZILA PADADHIKRI DAWARA NIRGAT AADESH KO ANOMODIT KIYA JAY.”
14. For the reasons discussed above, this court holds and finds that the impugned directions for the closure of the petitioner’s sale centre at village Barharwa Khurd was quite bad, illegal, unsustainable and inoperative. The two impugned letters are accordingly quashed and it is held that any action(s) taken against the petitioner for the violation of the directions contained in those letters would be void and non est.
15. It may be noted here that the controversy in this writ petition has no longer any practical significance. The petitioner got 23 villages of East Champaran, Motihari reserved in its favour by order dated 29/30.9.2000 passed by the Cane Commissioner. The order was stayed by an ex parte interim order passed by this Court on 23.11.2004. The interim order was finally vacated on 20.12.2004 when the writ petition filed by another sugar company was dismissed. The petitioner then set-up its sale centre for purchase of sugar canes from those villages in pursuance of the Collector’s order dated 24.12,2004. Within a week it was asked to close down the sale centre and the dispute arising from that direction has continued till date. In any event the crushing operation is likely to come to an end by the first week of March, 2005. The petitioner thus seems to have been able to derive benefits of the reservation made in its favour for a very short while.
16. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.