LALLU SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this pro bono publico petition under Article 226/227of the Constitution of India stating therein that the petitioner is an agriculturist of village Dihayala, Tehsil Narwar, District Shivpuri. He is also sugarcane grower and supplying the sugarcane to the sugar factories. In the petition, it is alleged that around 10,000 acres of land was reserved for growing sugarcane in Tehsil karera and Tehsil Narwar. Crop of sugarcane is ready but now the sugar factory, respondent No. 12 for whom the area is reserved is not purchasing the sugarcane and because of the reservation and ban imposed by the Cane Commissioner, madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, the farmers are not in a position to sell their produce of sugarcane to any other factory or to any other purchaser except to the gwalior Sugar Company Limited, Dabra (respondent No. 12 ). Copy of letter dated 8th December, 2006 issued by the Gwalior Sugar Company Limited, dabra was placed on record as Annexure P-1, in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner will supply sugarcane at the rate of Rs. 113/- per quintal, to the respondent, Gwalior Sugar Company and the company will accept 4 trucks sugarcane daily and payment of the same shall be made after fifteen days. It is alleged in the petition that because of the reservation and ban, the farmers are not in a position to sell the sugarcane to any other factory or out side of the State of Madhya Pradesh and they are only bound to sell the sugarcane to the respondent No. 12 - factory but the respondent No. 12, factory is not in a position to purchase the entire crop of sugar cane of Tehsil Narwar and Karera and as a result of the aforesaid action and policy, the crop of sugarcane is lying in the field, is getting dry and the farmers are at the verge of starvation.

(2.) ON the aforesaid urgency, notices were issued by this Court and on 21st February, 2007, a direction was given that the Cane Commissioner and a representative of the respondent No. 12, factory shall remain present personally in the Court. In compliance of the order, the Cane Commissioner and the Joint managing Director of respondent No. 12, company are present in the Court. Cane Commissioner has filed reply along with his own affidavit and in the reply it is submitted that the petition which has been filed is not in the public interest and the present petitioner was working as a broker between Sugar Company and growers on commission basis. On 26th November, 2006 he made some officer to the Managing Director of respondent No. 12 for supply of sugar cane stating that weighing machine is available at his own spot, he will arrange weighing staff, labour and transport, thereafter he will make payment to the farmers within one week and thereafter the company has to pay the entire amount to him within fifteen days and he will retain Rs. 3/- per quintal, as commission for himself. The aforesaid letter is Annexure R-2. The company accepted the aforesaid offer of the petitioner on commission at the rate of Re. 1/- per quintal on 28th november, 2006, which is Annexure R-3. Looking to the facts that the petitioner failed to comply the terms of the company and was making unreasonable demands from the company, the offer was withdrawn and proposal was cancelled by the company vide letter dated 10th December, 2006, which is Annexure R-5.

(3.) THE Cane Commissioner along with his reply submitted list of the reserved area as per village-wise for the year 2006- 07 and also placed copy of the order dated 1st February, 2006 as Annexure R-8. According to which on 1st february, 2006 it was made clear that there shall be no ban so far as the sale of sugarcane is concerned. In the letter addressed to the Collector, Shivpuri in which the Cane Commissioner has specifically mentioned that a sugar factory will be liable to purchase the sugarcane which shall be placed to the factory for the purpose of sale, therefore, whenever a grower will offer the sugarcane to the company, it will purchase according to the rate fixed and make the payment and if he will not offer the sugarcane for the purchase to the company, the grower shall be free to sell the same to any other factory or cooperative society. In the letter, it has been clarified that under Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it has been no where provided that a farmer of the sugarcane of the reserved area is liable to sell the sugarcane only to that factory for which the land is reserved on the contrary with a view to fetch better price, growers are free to sell sugar cane to any other factory, they may also sell it outside the reserved area and may sell it to any other factory or any other agency even outside of the state and there is no restriction on selling to a particular factory. It is also made clear that the Gwalior Sugar Company, Dabra shall not compel the farmers about the sale of the aforesaid sugarcane only to their factory. The Cane commissioner present in the Court before us submitted that a farmer is free to sell the sugarcane to any one even to outside the State of Madhya Pradesh also. From the aforesaid letter, it is clear that though area was reserved for the purpose of growing sugarcane but no such restriction has been imposed by the cane Commissioner regarding sale to the sugar cane to a particular factory or to a particular place and from the aforesaid letter/policy decision, the farmers are free to sell their produce of sugarcane to any body outside the reserved area or outside of the State. From the aforesaid reply, it is also clear that there is no such restriction on the farmers as has been pleaded by the petitioner in the petition. The Cane Commissioner submitted that he has not received any such complaint that crop is lying or getting dry in the field of the farmers or purchasers are not available to the farmers or the farmers are not getting good price of their produce or the farmers are at the verge of starvation.