SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petiton is directed against the order dated 10.11.95 (Annexure 3), passed by Shri C. Lalsita, Cane Commissioner, Bihar and the appellate order dated 20.4.96 (Annexure 4), passed by Shri R.C.A. Jain, Secretary, Department of Cane, Govt. of Bihar, in Appeal Case No. 5 of 1995 (Sunil Kumar V/s. The Cane Commissioner, Bihar & Ors.). By the said order dated 10.11.95 (Annexure 3), the Cane Commissioner has rejected the petitioner 'sapplication under Section 16(1) of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as &aposthe Act&apos), for grant of a licence for setting up an unit within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act which, in the present context, means setting up an Unit engaged in the production of Khandsari Sugar by power crusher. The order of the Cane Commissioner has been affirmed in appeal, and impugned herein.

(2.) THE petitioner submitted an application under Section 16(1) of the Act for a licence to set up an Unit for manufacture or production of Khandsari Sugar with power crusher. The petitioner stated that he owns 32 acres of land within Kamaldah Thana No. 182, where he grows sugarcane which is part of a cane growing area reserved for respondent no. 2 (Riga Sugar Company Ltd.), under Section 31 of the Act. He further stated that he has 18 acres of land elsewhere. He wanted to set up his Unit on the said 32 acres of land. Since the entire area Kamaldah Thana No. 182 which in - cludes his own is reserved in favour of respondent no. 2, he shall purchase sugarcane from the adjoining areas which are unreserved. Respondent no. 2 ap -peared before the Cane Commissioner and submitted its objection to the etitioner 'sapplication to the effect that production of respondent no. 2 will be impaired if licence is granted in favour of the petitioner. After hearing both the sides, the Cane Commissioner passed the aforesaid order dated 10.11.95 (An - nexure 3), whereby he rejected the petitioner 'sapplication under section 16(1) of the Act.

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on any trade or business. He next submits that the appellate authority has not recorded a finding that grant of the licence in favour of the petitioner will &aposunduly&apos impair production of sugar by respondent no. 2. He submits that Kamal - dah Thana No. 182 covers a huge area and also includes the petitioner 'sown land covering 32 acres which has been reserved in favour of respondent no. 2 under section 31 of the Act. He further submits that in such a peculiar situation, he is deprived of utilizing the sugarcane grown by him on his own land which has got to be sold to respondent no. 2. He submits that in the event of grant of licence, he shall be purchase (sic) sugarcane from the unreserved areas. He further invites my attention to the averments made in the writ petition where he says that the requirement of the proposed Unit will be about 50,000 quintals of sugarcane per year. He has grown about 10,000 quintals of sugarcane on his own land outside the reserved area and shall purchase 40,000 quintals of sugarcane from different sources, namely, the agriculturists of non -reserved areas. He further invites my attention to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition to the effect that 52,500 acres of sugarcane -growing area is reserved in favour of respondent no. 2, and the total sugarcane produced in the reserved area is about 52,50,000 quintals. It is further stated that the existing capacity of respondent no. 2 as on the date of institution of the writ petition was around 25,000 quintals of sugarcane per day, a sugar mill normally works without interruption for a total period of 130 -150 days every year. In that view of the matter the writ petition asserts that respondent no. 2 will require about 37,50,000 qntls. of sugarcane for 150 days. In other words, respondent no. 2 will have about 15 lakhs qntls. of sugarcane in excess in its reserved area only to the detriment of the cane growers and others. The writ petition further asserts, respondent no. 2 had worked for 190 days during the year 1994 -95 but crushed only 33 lakhs quintals of sugarcane.