AKHTAR ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. In this case an order was passed under Section 15 of U. P. Sugar cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 on 19-10-1995 by which the respondent No. 3 was asked to open a centre at Pitlonkar and the respondent No. 4 was also permitted to open a purchase centre at the same place and the Co-operative society operating in the area was also permitted to make supply to respondent No. 4. Under sub-section (4) of Section 15 an appeal is provided against any order passed under sub-section a ). The respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal, on which the order dated 19-10-1995, as been set aside by order dated 15th December, 1995. This order has been challenged by means of this petition by the petitioners who are individuals. Miss Bharti Sapru, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 raises preliminary objection that this application is not maintainable by the individual growers in view of Section 15 (1) of the Act which provides "that the order under sub-section (1) can be passed after consulting the Factory and Cane growers 'co-operative Society. "

(2.) SRI Vineet Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 on then other hand contends that the respondent No. 4 was not a party in the appeal. Therefore, his rights cannot be affected by reason of the order passed in the aforesaid appeal.

(3.) FROM the impugned order it appears that the appellate authority has recorded that all parties have been heard and given opportunity of hearing. But from the record it does not appear as to who are the parties except that it is recorded that copies be sent to certain person named at the bottom of the said order which includes the Co-operative society but the name of respondent No. 4 does not appear from the said order. Therefore, it can be ascertained that the Co-operative society was given opportunity but it is not possible to ascertain definitely mat the respon dent No. 4 was party to the appeal.