KICHCHA SUGAR COMPANY Vs. COMMISSIONER MORADABAD DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri Ravindra Singh appears for respondent no.3.

(2.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.9.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad-respondent no.1, and the order dated 30.7.2012 passed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner/Arbitrator, District Meerut-respondent no.2.

(3.) Brief facts, giving rise to the writ petition are that the Moradabad Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited-respondent no.3 filed an application under Rule 108 of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1954) for appointment of Arbitrator. The Cane Commissioner vide his order dated 9.2.2009 appointed the respondent no.2 as the Arbitrator. The petitioner-sugar mill filed a detailed objection stating that during crushing season 1998-99, 24 cane purchase areas were reserved for Rampur Chinni Mills but since they could not lift the sugarcane, the Cane Commissioner vide his order dated 24.12.1998 allotted the sugarcane of these cane purchase centres to the petitioner-sugar mill. The weighing clerk of Cane Purchase Centre, Saihal was found guilty for not supplying the sugarcane of 1140.93 quintals of sugarcane. The five claims have been rejected by the Consumer Forum. The respondent no.3 filed the reply to the objections filed by the petitioner on 5.9.2009. The petitioner filed its reply on 27.7.2011 and also submitted written argument on 20.4.2012. The respondent no.2 vide order dated 30.7.2012 allowed the claim of respondent no.3 and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.88,992.54 as cane price. The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 118 of the Rules of 1954 along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The respondent no.1 dismissed the appeal on 19.7.2013 on the ground that the petitioner-appellant failed to point out the provision of law, under which the appeal has been preferred and, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal is not maintainable. Aggrieved with the order dated 19.7.2013, the petitioner-sugar mill filed a Writ C No.51146 of 2013, which was allowed on 19.9.2013, and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. By the order dated 26.9.2014, the respondent no.1 again dismissed the appeal.