MAHABIR SUGAR MILLS Vs. COMMISSIONER, GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, dated Oct. 25, 1975 condoning the delay in filing appeal under R. 118 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954.

(2.) Messrs Mahabir Sugar Mills Ltd., as a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of sugar by vacuum pan process. For the purpose of manufacture, it purchases sugarcane from the cane growers within the area reserved for the Mill under the provisions of the U. P. Sugarcane (Supply and Purchase) Act 1953. The Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Siswa Bazar, is a co-operative society of cane growers which supplied sugarcane to the petitioner Mill in the year 1968-69. The petitioner-mill paid only statutory price as fixed by the Central Government to the cane growers for the cane purchased by it and it refused to .pay the agreed price on the ground that there was fall in the recovery of sucrose in the sugarcane. The Society thereupon raised a dispute under R. 108 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, relating to the payment of price of sugarcane. The Cane Commissioner referred the dispute for adjudication to the Deputy Cane Commissioner who was appointed as arbitrator. The dispute was contested by the petitioner Mill. The arbitrator by his award dated Feb. 13, 1974, rejected the claim of the respondent-society. The award was communicated to the respondent Society on March 4, 1974.

(3.) The Society presented an appeal against the award before the Cane Commissioner, who returned back the same on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the award as the appeal lay before the Commissioner of the (revenue) Division under R. 118 of Rules, The Society thereupon filed appeal before the Commr. on April 9, 1974 but it filed another appeal on April 15, 1974. Both the appeals were identical and directed against the same award. Under R. 118 an appeal against the award of the arbitrator has to be filed within one month of the date of communication of the award but as the respondent Society had filed appeal beyond one month it made an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. The petitioner Mill contested the application and asserted that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable, and as such the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The Commissioner by his order dated Oct. 25, 1975 held that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable and he condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner Mill filed this petition challenging the validity of the order of the Commissioner.