(1.) It has been admitted at bar that except different cane purchase centres, the factory as well as the question of law and fact in both these writ petitions are same hence, are decided by the common judgment. The Writ Petition No. 581 (M/S) of 2010 is taken as leading petition.
(2.) The petitioner, Simbholi Sugars Ltd., (Unit Brajnathpur), District Ghaziabad, a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in manufacture of white crystal sugar through vacuum pan process at Brajnathpur, District Ghaziabad having crushing capacity of 4000 TCD. It has been alleged that the actual cane requirement of the petitioner Sugar Mill is 72 lakh quintal. The respondent No. 4 is also a sugar mill situated at village Bhandoria, District Bulandshahr. The working area of both, the petitioner Sugar Mill and the respondent No. 4 Sugar Mill, seems to overlap the area and the cane purchase centres allotted to them, have been the question for controversy from time to time.
(3.) The present controversy relates to 8 cane purchase centres namely, Sherpur, Partapur, Khangawali, Saidpur, Kisola-I, Kisola-ll, Hazipur-I and Hazipur-ll. All these cane purchase centres have been the reserved area of respondent No. 4 which was assigned to the petitioner by the order dated 2.11.2009, copy of which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by the Cane Commissioner in pursuance of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (in short the Act). While passing the order dated 2.11.2009, the Cane Commissioner observed that the petitioner Sugar Mill had earlier started crushing work from 8.11.2008 and continued upto 29.3.2009, thus, worked for 142 days and crushed 35.01 lakh quintal sugar cane. The Cane Commissioner noted 28% reduction of sugar and keeping in view the capacity of petitioner's sugar, observed that 51.61 lakh quintal sugarcane may be allotted and for that purpose, 9421 hectare of cane crop shall be necessary. After hearing the representatives of the petitioner's Sugar Mill and the Cane Cooperative Society, the Cane Commissioner considered the petitioner's demand in pursuance of Rule 22 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (in short the Rules), and assigned all these centres in question to the petitioner's Sugar Mill.