SIEL LTD Vs. CANE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of the parties, we are disposing of this petition finally.

(2.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 20.11.2001, Annexure-2 to the writ petition has been passed by the District Cane Officer, Muzaffar Nagar, although the competent authority was the Cane Commissioner. We are of the opinion that this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in view of Section 15 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. It is only the Cane Commissioner who can pass such orders under Section 15 and not the District Cane Officer.

(3.) Sri Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that the impugned order was passed with the concurrence of the Cane Commissioner. The impugned order states that the order is being passed after discussions with the Cane Commissioner. In our opinion, the power to pass the order cannot be delegated as the Act does not permit such delegation. It is the Cane Commissioner himself who has to pass that order and it is not after the discussions with the Cane Commissioner that the District Cane Officer can pass such orders.