LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-63

MAWANA SUGAR LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On March 20, 2006
MAWANA SUGAR LTD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. The dispute in this writ petition pertains to the 7 cane centres, namely, (i) Paharpur-ll; (ii) Kunda/pinai- II; (ii) Niloha-IV; (iv) Naglashekhu-ll; (v) Navipur/lalpur-ll; (vi) Nagli Sadharanpur-ll; and (vii) In-choli-lll. For the current crushing season 2005-06, the said centres were reserved in favour of the petitioner M/s. Mawana Sugar Ltd. (for short 'petitioner- mill') and assigned in favour of Respondent No. 3 D. C. M. Sriram In dustries Ltd. , unit Daurala Sugar Works (for short 'respondent- mill" ).

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that for the current crushing season 2005-06, for the petitioner and respon dent mills, two separate orders dated 1-10-2005 were passed by the Cane Commissioner under Section 15 (1) of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (for short the Act' ). By such orders (which are commonly known as the Yeservation orders'), cane centres were reserved and assigned in favour of the two sugar mills. For the crushing seasons 2002-03 to 2005-06, the re quirement of cane for the petitioner and respondent mills was assessed by the Cane Commissioner earlier on 5-A 2003, at 180 lac quintals and 140 lac quintals respectively. After determining the drawal percentage of the petitioner and the respondent mills at 61% and 74% respectively, by the reservation orders, the required yield of cane of the areas of the two mills, as per their respective drawal percentage, was assessed at 295. 08 lac quintals and 189. 8 lac quintals respectively. THE produc tion of sugar cane in the areas of both the sugar mills was assessed at 680. 20 quintals per hectare. On this basis it was provided that for availability of 180 and 140 lac quintals of cane to the two sugar mills, the required yield of cane for the said sugar mills could be made available from 43, 381 hectares and 27, 813 hectares respectively. On the aforesaid basis, the total area allotted (which included the reserved and as signed areas) by the reservation order to the petitioner-mill was 43, 705 hec tares, which would have a yield of 297. 28 lacs quintal sugarcane; and 28, 218 hectares to the respondent-mill, which would have a yield of 191. 94 lac quintals sugarcane. Since, by the aforesaid reservation order, the seven cane centres in dispute, though reserved in favour of the petitioner-mill, w ere assigned to the respondent- mill, the petitioner-mill filed an appeal before the State Government under Section 15 (4) of the Act.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority has dis missed the appeal of the petitioner-mill mainly on three grounds. Firstly, that the total area available with the petitioner-mill in the previous year was 43, 834 hectares whereas this year it is 43, 706 hectares, which is 128 hectares less than the previous year; and the total area available to the respondent-mill in the previous year was 37, 232 hectares whereas in the present year it is 28, 218 hectares, which is 9, 014 hectares less than the previous year, which is com paratively much more than the area which has been reduced in the case of the petitioner-mill. Secondly, that the reduction in the area was because of re-zoning on account of establishment of new sugar mills in the area and since the petitioner did not complain of there being shortage of sugarcance in the pre vious year, no further allotment of area was required to be made for the petitioner. Thirdly, that because of re-zoning of the areas, the various factors enumerated in Rule 22 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (for short the Rules') lose its efficacy and what is re quired to be considered is that by reser vation or assignment, all the sugar mills are allotted sufficient sugarcane. Lastly it has also been stated that according to the respondent-mill, it needs more cane as it has increased its crushing capacity from 8, 000 to 10, 000 TCD and its drawal is fixed at 74%, whereas that of the petitioner-mill is fixed at only 61%, hence in case if there is shortage of sugarcane for the petitioner- mill, it can increase its drawal and fulfill its requirement.