SIEL LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 14-1-97 Annexure-1 to the writ petition which has been passed by the State Govern ment under Section 15 (4) of the U. P. Sugar cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to Act ).

(2.) HEARD Sri Sudhir Chandra learned senior Advocate and Ms. Bharati Sapru for the petitioner, and Sri Vineet Saran for respondent No. 2 as well as learned Stand ing Counsel. None appeared for respondent No. 3 although notice was served personally on it.

(3.) SRI Sudhir Chandra learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the years 1993-94,1994-95 and 1995-96 the crushing capacity of the Mawana unit of the petitioner was only 5000 TC. D. per day, but the crushing capacity in 1996-97 has gone up to the 9,000 T. C. D. and hence the petitioner's unit requires more cane. He has stated that the amount of cane, crushed by the petitioner's unit at Mawana has been increasing from 1993-94 to 1995-96 every year. In paragraph-17a of the writ petition it has been stated that in 1994-95 0. 18 lakh quintal was purchased by the petitioner's unit, while in 1995-96 0. 19 lakh quintal was purchased during the period mentioned in para 17a. In para-18 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner expressed need of 1. 62 lakh quintal of sugar cane. In para 39 of the writ petition it is stated that in a period of 58 days the petitioner had purchased 0. 22 lakh quintal of Sugar cane from cane centre Shivpuri. In para 42 of the writ petition it is stated that respondent No. 2 has 41 cane centres reserved to it with the crushing capacity of 10,000 T. C. D. while the petitioner has only 90 cane centres reserved to it having crushing capacity 9,000 T. C. D.