Court No. - 12 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 228 of 2010 Petitioner :- M/S Gulariya Chini Mills Through Its Occupier Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Sugar Industri Petitioner Counsel :- Akhilesh Kalra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S.Pawar,Rajesh Tewari Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Asit
Srivastava, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Tiwari appearing for
Respondent No.4 as well as Sri H. P. Srivastava for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3
and Sri K. S. Pawar appearing for Respondent Nos. 5 ,6 & 7 and perused the
record.
Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that although
by order dated 22.01.2010 all the parties were directed to maintain status quo
as on date in respect of purchase of sugar cane till 25.01.2010. However, in
view of the impugned order the respondent no.4 sugar mill is making all
efforts to purchase the sugarcane from the cane centre Basaigapur Pratham
which was in fact assigned to the petitioner sugar mill by reservation order. In
this regard Mr. Prashant Chandra has taken the Court to the impugned order
particularly the order with respect to Basaigapur cane centre, Basaigapur
Pratham where the appellate authority has permitted the interested cane
farmers to supply the cane at the mill gate of sugar mill Khambharkhera. The
District Cane Officer, Khambharkhera is directed to prepare the list of the
interested cane growers in this regard.
He has submitted that no two sugar mills simultaneously shall be permitted to
purchase sugarcane from one sugarcane centre.
The question as to whether there can be an order of joint purchase of
sugarcane in favour of two or more sugar factories in respect of the reserved
area has been considered by this Court in the case of Govind Nagar Sugar
Mill Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & others and it has been held that normally there
cannot be an order permitting the joint purchase by two or more than two
sugar factories in a particular reserved and assigned area. The relevant portion
in this regard is quoted below:
“48- The conclusion, therefore, is that a harmonious construction of the
provisions of the Act and the Rules and Order, 1954 and in line with the aim
and object of the Act, there cannot be an order permitting the joint purchase
by two or more than two sugar factories in a particular reserved and
assigned area and consequently, there cannot be an order for willing cane
growers, to sell the sugarcane to any factory of their choice in such area. In
case the necessity is felt and exigencies so demand that two or more than two
factories should be permitted to lift the sugarcane from one reserved or
assigned area, the Cane Commissioner would be obliged to demarcate the
reserved or assigned area for each sugar factory.”
Relying of the aforesaid judgment the learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the order of the appellate authority so far as it relates to cane
centre, Basaigapur Pratham is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari has tried to impress that since only the interested farmers
have been allowed to supply their cane at the gate centre, therefore, there is no
illegality or infirmity in the order.
Mr. K. S. Pawar, learned counsel for the Cooperative Societies has submitted
that list will be prepared in this regard by the District Cane Officer and on that
basis a demarcation in the area of sugarcane would be done and, therefore,
there is no illegality in the order.
Prima facie I am satisfied that unless and until the demarcation of the
sugarcane area in a cane centre is done by the Cane Commissioner, two sugar
mills cannot be permitted to purchase sugarcane from one cane centre.
In view of above, the order of the appellate authority dated 05.01.2009
(Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) so far it relates to the supply of sugar
cane by the interested farmers at the gate centre of sugar mill, Khambharkhera
relating to cane centre Basaigapur Pratham is stayed.
Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submits that his reply is under
preparation and he wants three days time to file the counter affidavit. Mr. K.
S. Pawar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 submits that he will
also file the reply within three days.
Let the case be listed on 08.02.2010 for orders. By that time all the
respondents shall file their counter affidavits. The respondents may also file
stay vacation if they so want.
Order Date :- 29.1.2010
Im
