VENUS SUGAR LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRADEEP Kant Notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3 notice has been accepted by Madhu Singh and on behalf of respondent No. 4 notice has been accepted by Sri Sushil Kumar and Dr. R. K. Srivastava.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties' Counsel, with their consent, we have proceeded to decide the writ petition finally. Since both the petitions involve the same controversy, though with respect to different cane purchase centres, and common question of law, we connect the two petitions and decide the same finally, with the consent of the parties' Counsel, the respondents being represented by their respective Counsel.

(3.) THE reservation order was passed by the Cane Commissioner on 25-10-04, in which cane centres Baniyather-I, Baniyather-II, Sahaspur, Bahoranpur and Dadola were assigned to the respondent No. 4, namely, D. S. M. Sugar, Asmoli, District Moradabad. This order is contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. Soon thereafter, another order dated 29-10-04 was passed by the Cane Commissioner stating that the petitioner Sugar Mills have made some representation on 27-10-04, which was forwarded through the State Government to the Cane Commissioner, in which it was stated that the Sugar Mill in whose favour these centres have been assigned, feeling aggrieved by the assignment made in favour of the petitioner sugar mill, earlier i. e. in previous crushing season, had preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the State Government, which order was upheld by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court and, therefore, these centres be assigned in favour of the petitioner.