PICADILY AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceedings of the Sugar Cane Board held on 11.11.2014 under the chairmanship of Shri Om Parkash Dhankar, Agriculture Minister, Haryana, has given rise to the present controversy, which is the subject matter of these two writ petitions. The decision at the meeting consisted, inter alia, of re -allocation of certain villages which would be bonded to certain specified sugar factories which is the point of contention between the petitioner and the 4th respondent - Saraswati Sugar Mills, Yamunanagar, both of which are sugar factories, the former having been made to cede 4 villages viz., Khukhani, Chogama, Chandraon and Hansumajra to the latter by virtue of the decision. There had been other changes as regards the allotment about which we are not immediately concerned about.

(2.) THE petitioner in CWP No. 24967 of 2014 which is the sugar mill that has been deprived of the allotment of the four villages is before the court complaining that the decision was the result of the intervention of the Minister for Agriculture at whose direction the allocation has been made without any form of objective assessment. It had not been even made a subject of agenda for the meeting on 11.11.2014 but had been introduced as among other subjects which could be brought with the permission of the Chair. Even the Vice -President of the petitioner mill did not know of the subject till it was put through as a subject of consideration hurriedly and when the decision had been taken. According to the petitioner, it had raised immediate objection about the unjustness of the decision, whereupon, the Chairman of the Board assured the petitioner that it could give its detailed objections within a period of 24 -48 hours and till the time the status quo be maintained. The petitioner had given its detailed objections, including the fact that the bonding of the four villages to the petitioner had been in subsistance for more than 10 years, taking due note of the Haryana Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase U Supply) Rules 1993, which set out the relevant criteria for the allocations. Although in the initial period from 1998 to 2004, there had been alternating allotments between the petitioner and the Yamunanagar Sugar Mill, on the last of the occasion 2005, when the four villages were assigned to the petitioner company, a writ petition was filed in CWP No. 18468 of 2005 challenging the order passed then on 10.11.2005. By the time when the matter was taken up the crushing season had already ended and the petition became infructuous but the petitioner in the said writ petition had prayed for direction that their representation be considered.

(3.) THE consideration with the Cane Commissioner led to a direction to the Project Officer, Cane to conduct a survey to assess the distance of the four villages from the factory of the petitioner company and the Yamunanagar Sugar Mill. A detailed report had been given that suggested itself in favour of the assignment of the four villages to the petitioner Sugar Mill as most viable and accorded with all the relevant consideration under 1993 rules, referred to above and ever since 2005, the four villages remained allotted to the petitioner company. All these information by the petitioner was in the manner of explaining as to how the assignment of the villages to the petitioner company had been on consideration of all the relevant facts after detailed survey and this was thwarted on a whimsical intervention of the Agriculture Minister. There was no deliberation at all at the meeting for a sudden change in the allocation and being arbitrary, it is liable to be set aside. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of assignment of four villages to the Saraswati Sugar Mill - 4th respondent and to issue further consequential direction for retaining the four villages to the petitioner sugar mill.