SUBHASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, also perused the writ application and the counter-affidavit.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners are that in accordance with S. 48, sub-section (2) as amended by Act No. 2/1994 amending the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulations for Supply and Purchases) (Amendment) Act, 1993. the State Government is obliged to declare or determine the share of Zonal Development Council and the Co-operative Society from the commission payable under sub-section (1) of S. 48 of the said Act, and. as the State Government has not issued any notification to that effect the State Government be required to issue necessary notification determining the share of the Zonal Development Council and the Co-operative Society. ;

(3.) The respondents submit before this Court that by the said amending Act number of the amendments were made in the original Act. It is contended that from the body of Ss. 29, 32, 35, 41, 43, 44, the words, "the Secretary of the Co-operative Society" or " Cooperative Society" have been deleted, therefore, the Co-operative Societies are not entitled to any commission. Through Annexure-B it is sought to be contended that the Co-operative Societies have utterly failed in their purpose to serve the cane growers, and have been rendered infructuous, this should be disbanded. It would only be proper to pass the Societies commission to the Zonal Development Work. The learned counsel for the State Government submits that in view of the amendment in S. 29 etc. and the policy of the State Government, the Societies shall not be entitled to any commission and in any case, if the Societies are entitled to any commission then a particular Society cannot claim a particular share from the commission, which would be paid to the Zonal Development Council. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that though drastic amendments have been made in body of S. 29 and other sections, but the State Government in its turn has utterly failed in appreciating that S. 18, sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) have been introduced by the very same amending Acts. He submits that the State Government had issued the percentage of the commission payable to the Zonal Development Council but has not determined the share of the council and the Co-operative Societies. According to him the State Government has failed in its statutory duty, therefore, the State Government deserves to be directed to issue the required notification determining the share of the Zonal Development Council and Co-operative Society from the commission payable under subsection (1) of S. 48 of the Act.