HARENDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, Sri Rohan Gupta for respondent no.3 and Sri Ravindra Singh appearing on behalf of respondent no.4.

(2.) THE petitioners, who are individual Cane growers, are aggrieved by order of respondent no.2 dated 20.10.2014 passed in appeal whereby, the area attached to the sugar mills have been changed. Indisputably, they are members of the Cane Society -respondent no.4.

(3.) SRI Ravindra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioners who are members of respondent no.4, cannot assail the order as any such measures is to be taken by respondent no.4. It is submitted that it is only the Sugarcane Co -operative Society, respondent no.4, who can espouse the cause of its members. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Writ Petition -C No.2075 of 2014, Satnaam Vs. State of U.P. through Secy. and 8 others, decided on 15.01.2014 and another Division Bench decision of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1081 of 2013, Dharam Veer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. thru. Secy. and others, decided on 09.01.2013, wherein it has been held that grievance can be addressed only by the Sugarcane Co -operative Society. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards various provisions of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and the rules framed thereunder.