DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. JOINT SECRETARY SUGAR INDUSTRIES AND CANE DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. The petition is being disposed of finally at the admis sion stage with the consent of the parties.

(2.) U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been enacted to regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in Sugar Factories. The Cane Commissioner exercising powers under Section 15 of the Act passed an order on November 9, 1994 directing that two purchase centres namely, Haidarpur and Alawalpur be assigned to the petitioner-Dhampur Sugar Mill. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Cane Commissioner, Bijnor Sugar Mill preferred an appeal before the State Government under sub-section (4j of Sec tion 15 of the Act. The appeal was allowed by the order dated January 27, 1995 and the aforesaid centres were assigned to Bijnor Sugar Mill. The writ petition has been filed by Dhampur Sugar Mill for quashing the order dated January 27, 1995 passed by the State Government. Subsequently, the State Government passed an order on February 28, 1995 by which the earlier order dated January 27, 1995 was modified and the petitioner-Dhampur Sugar Mill and Shivhara Sugar Mills were also allowed to operate the aforesaid pur chase centres. The petitioner has moved an amendment application seeking quashing of this order as well of the State Government.

(3.) SHRI D. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority has failed to notice that the disputed Purchase Centers have been continuously assigned to the petitioner- Sugar Mill since 1991. He has further submitted that Bijnor Sugar Mill never made any claim for being assigned the disputed purchase centres to it before the Cane Com missioner. It has also been urged that though in the earlier part of the order, crushing capacity of the two mills was noticed but while passing the order, the aforesaid fact was not taken into consideration. The crushing capacity of petitioner sugar mill was much higher and there was short fall of 50 lac quintals of sugarcane while the short fall of Bijnor Sugar Mill was only 4 lacs quintals. Learned Counsel has also urged that the actual performance of both the Sugar Mills ought to have been considered. SHRI R. D. Khare, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that Bijnor Sugar Mill had spent huge amount on the development of area and fruits of the develop ment should go to respondent No. 2 and not to the petitioner-Sugar Mill solely on the basis of its higher crushing capacity. He has also urged that at the time of increasing crushing capacity the petitioner's mill had given an undertaking that there was sufficient sugarcane available in its reserved area and in view of this undertaking which must have been given by the petitioner-sugar mill when it was granted permission to increase its crushing capacity, it is not open to it to complain that sufficient quantity of sugarcane is not available to it.