BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the common question of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions and the manufacturing units are situated within the Cane Region Meerut and, as such, they are being decided by a common judgment. Heard Mr. Virendra Bhatia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sudeep Kumar and Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, for Daurala Sugar Works, Mr. Dhruv Mathur for Modi Sugar Mills and SBEC Sugar Mills, Dr. R. K. Srivastava for Simbhaoli Sugar Mills, Mr. Sudeep Kumar for Naglamal Sugar Complex and Mawana Sugar Works, Mr. Jyotinjay Verma for U. P. State Sugar Corporation, Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh for Triveni Engineering Works Limited and Mr. K. S. Pawar for Co-operative Cane Development Societies and perused the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are being decided at the admission stage itself. Petitioners' Units, registered under the Companies Act, situate within Meerut Division and are involved in the production and sale of White Crystal Sugar through Vacuum pan Process. For the crushing season 2008-09, the Cane Commissioner invited applications in the requisite format from all the units within the said region under Section 12 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 [hereinafter referred to as the ''act' for the sake of brevity] and in pursuance thereof, applications were submitted. On the basis of the applications so submitted by the Units, order under Section 12 of the Act was passed. After passing the order under Section 12 (2) of the Act, applications were invited for passing reservation orders under Section 15 of the Act and in pursuance thereof, all the units have submitted their applications in the requisite format and the Cane Commissioner after hearing the occupiers of the factories as well as the representative of the Cooperative Societies have passed the reservation orders under Section 15 (1) of the Act on 3. 11. 2008. The orders so passed were assailed by filing writ petition in this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petition and relegated the matter to the Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the appeals expeditiously, as the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy. In compliance thereof, the petitioner filed an appeal alongwith application for interim relief and the Appellate Authority rejected the application for interim relief by means of the order dated 27. 11. 2008 which was assailed by M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. by filing another writ petition in this Court, but subsequently the said writ petition was withdrawn as the orders were finally passed in the appeal by the appellate authority on 4. 12. 2008, remanding the matter to the Cane Commissioner for deciding afresh. The said order has been assailed by M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. , M/s DCM Shriram Industries Limited and M/s Mawana Sugars Limited by filing writ petitions, which were numbered as Writ Petition No. 5959 (MS) of 2008, Writ petition No. 6041 (MS) of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 6039 (MS) of 2008 respectively. Affidavits have also been filed by the respective parties in Writ Petition No. 5959 (MS) of 2008. In has been contended by the counsel for Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. that the mill demanded for 260 LQ of sugarcane, but as per order under Section 12, the requirement estimated was 180 LQ and vide reservation orders, the Cane Commissioner allotted 150 LQ. It has been submitted that ninety sugarcane centres of the mill have been assigned to different units within the region by means of reservation orders for the crushing season 2008-09 and also the area has been reduced. Accordingly, he preferred an appeal praying therein for reverting the said centres in favour of the said mill. It was also urged that while assigning the sugarcane centres, area has also been reduced. While assailing the orders of reservation before the appellate authority, it has been urged by the petitioner that the proposal of the sugarcane growers Cooperative Society are mostly in favour of the appellant in respect of the sugarcane centres which have been assigned to the opposite parties, but in spite of it contrary finding had been recorded by the Cane Commissioner.

(2.) It has also been contended that the Cane Commissioner has not considered that the sugarcane dues as well as commission has been paid though after litigation which went upto the Apex Court. It has also been stated that some of the sugarcane centres falls within the mill-gate area and in assigning the said centres in favour of other units, there is a possibility of poaching and illegal purchases of sugarcane. Drawal percentages have also been enhanced in respect of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. as compared to other units. It has also been contended that while passing the orders, requisite factors, as enumerated in Rule 22 of the Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules for the sake of brevity] have not been followed. Finally, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for interim relief which has been rejected by the Appellate Authority is without any reason, as the units in whose favour reserved area of the petitioner has been assigned, are lifting the sugarcane which will result in colossal loss to the unit in case the orders are reversed. M/s DCM Shriram Industies Limited and M/s Mawana Sugars Limited have assailed the orders passed by the Appellate Authority inter alia on the grounds that the Appellate Authority has failed to consider that sugarcane growers of different Cooperative Societies have been harassed by Bajaj Hindustan Limited insofar as they have not been paid the sugarcane dues for the crushing season 2007-08 in time as well as the resolutions for not supplying the sugarcane to M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. have been adopted by the Society.

(3.) They have also contended that the sugarcane has not been made available as has been estimated in an order under Section 12 of the Act and as such, there was a shortage of sugarcane, therefore, the order for remand passed under Section 15 (4) is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be quashed. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Co-operative Cane Development Societies, which have been arrayed as opposite parties 12 to 15, supporting the orders passed by the Cane Commissioner and stated that the Societies have passed the resolutions against M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. for the reason that the cheque given by the petitioner-factory to the opposite party No. 13 was dishonoured. It has also been stated that the amount of sugarcane was only paid, after initiation of recovery proceedings and the said proceedings went upto Apex Court resulting in harassment of the sugarcane growers in the crushing season 2007-08. In a short counter affidavit filed on behalf of M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited, Lucknow, it has been stated that the appellate authority did not record any reason with regard to the illegality in the orders passed by the Cane Commissioner under Section 15 (1) of the Act but inspite of that remanded the matter to the Cane Commissioner and affording another chance to the Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. It has also been submitted that all the mills in the region have been allocated less sugarcane on account of shortage of sugarcane during the crushing season 2008-09. It has also been stated that the reservation order has been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances by an expert body and as such, there is no occasion for interfering in the said order.