HEDGE, - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THIS appeal by certificate arises from the decision renderedon 18/03/1968, by the Patna High court in C. W. J. C. No. 816 of1967. That was a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of theConstitution praying, inter alia, that the High court may be pleased toquash the two orders made by the Cane Commissioner, Bihar on 14/11/1967, under which he excluded 99 villages from the area reserved by himin favour of the appellant under Clause 6 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order,1966 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'order') and included those villagesin the area reserved in favour of New Siwan Mill (5th respondent in thisappeal). The High court dismissed that writ petition. The appellant company was established in 1903. Though its SugarMill is in U. P., it used to draw its Sugarcane requirement mainly from theneighbouring areas in Bihar State. The Mill in question is within about 100yards of the Bihar border. The appellant's case is that for the last over 30310years the 208 villages of Bihar, with which we are concerned in this appealhad been the principal source of its supply of sugarcane and that the Biharauthorities used to reserve those villages for it. The appellant claims tohave spent huge amount in the development of sugarcane growing areas inthe said 208 villages in the course of years. It also claims to have advancedlarge sums to the sugarcane growers in the said villages, such sums to be ad-justed later on against the price of the sugarcane purchased. In 1955 theCentral government promulgated the 'order' in exercise of its powers underthe Essential Commodities Act. One of the main purpose of that order was toregulate the supply and distribution of sugarcane. Reservation of the said208 villages in favour of the appellant continued under that order. But inview of the agitation carried on by the 5th repondent and others, duringthe two seasons, 1962-63 and 1963-64, those villages were kept unreserved.Hence any factory was free to make purchases in that area. Even duringthat period the appellant continued to get its supplies from that area. On 3/02/1964, there was a meeting of the Cane Commissioners of Biharand U. P. with the object of deciding on a long term basis the question ofallotting sugarcane grown in the border area among the sugar factoriessituated near the Bihar, U. P. border. In that meeting it was decided interalia that the aforementioned 208 villages should be reserved in favour of theappellant ; at the same time some of sugarcane growing areas in U. P. werereserved for some of the Bihar Sugar Mills. Accordingly the Cane Com-missioner of Bihar passed orders reserving the aforementioned 208 villages forthe appellant for two seasons i.e 1964-65 and 1965-66. For the New Siwan Mill(5th respondent) 100 more villages were reserved in Guthani area. Therepresentation of the New Siwan Mill for reserving the 208 villages men-tioned earlier was rejected by the Cane Commissioner. The powers of the central government under Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9of the 'order' were delegated to the several States and the Cane Com-missioners mentioned in .the notification issued by the central governmenton 16/07/1966. The State government of Bihar and the Cane Com-missioner of Bihar are amongst the authorities to whom the powers under thoseclauses were delegated. By its order of 4/11/1966, the State Govern-ment of Bihar rejected the representation made by New Siwan Mill by itsapplication of 17/02/1966 asking for reservation of the 208 villagesmentioned earlier. Thereafter by his order of 30/12/1966, the CaneCommissioner, Bihar reserved those villages for the appellant under Clause6(l)(a) of the 'order' for two seasons 1966-67 and 1967-68). The New SiwanMill challenged the validity of that order in C.W.J.C. No. 63 of 1967 inthe Patna High court. The appellant filed its counter affidavit in that pro-ceeding on 21/03/1967. The application was heard in part on 13/04/1967 and A 14/04/1967 but thereafter the case was adjourned. Later theoppellant learnt that the 5th respondent had moved the Chief Minister ofBihar to revoke the reservation made in favour of the appellant. Apprehendingthat the appellant's interest may be jeopardised, one of the directors of theappellant company wrote to the Chief Minister on 15/06/1967, prayingthat the reservation made in favour of the appellant should not be disturbed.Subsequent to that, the appellant made numerous other representations bothto the Chief Minister as well as to the Cane Commissioner. One of theDirectors of the appellant company met the Chief Minister as well as hisPrivate secretary. Meanwhile the 5th respondent was also making repre-sentations to the Chief Minister as well as to the Cane Commissioner. Fromthe records produced before us, it is clear that the Cane Commissioner wasfirmly of the opinion that there was no justification for disturbing the reser-vation made in favour of the appellant. He strongly recommended to the311Chief Minister against interfering with the said reservation. According tohim it was in the interest of the Sugar Industry as well as that of theSugar Mills in Bihar not to disturb the agreement arrived at the meeting ofthe Sugar Cane Commissioners of U. P. and Bihar. From the records pro-duced before us it is seen that one of the grounds urged by the 5th respondentin support of his pica was that while it was a Bihar Mill, the appellant wasa U. P. Mill and as such the Bihar villages should be reserved for its use.From the note submitted by Shri Tarini Sahai, an officer in the Cane Com-missioner's department, to the Assistant Cane Commissioner on 5/07/1967,it is seen that the Chief Minister was interesting himself in the controversybetween the appellant and the 5th respondent. That is also clear from thenote submitted by S. Asanullah, another officer in the same department tothe Cane Commissioner on 7/7/1967. It is unnecessary to refer to the corres-pondence that passed between the Cane Gommissoner and the Chief Ministerbut one thing is clear from that correspondence that while the Cane Com-missioner was firm in his opinion that the agreement entered into betweenhim and his counterpart in U. P. should be respected, the Chief Minister wasinclined to alter the reservation made in favour of the appellant. In the notessubmitted by the Assistanl Cane Commissioner to the Cane Commissioner wefind the following statement : "As verbally ordered by the Cane Commissioner in the backgroundof the above notes of the Assistant Cane Commissioner in connectionwith the discussions held with the Chief Minister the undersigned ex-amined the geographical positions given in the map. 208 villages of Bihar are reserved for Purtabpore Mill. They are dividedas follows : JUDGEMENT_308_1_1969Html1.htm ___________In the note submitted by the Cane Commissioner to the Chief Ministeron 27/10/1967, it is stated :"As per order, the above two suggestions (Ka and Kha) have beengiven for division of 208 villages between the New Siwan Mill and thePurtabpore Mill. According to one (Ka), the New Siwan Mill gets 121villages and according to the second proposal (Kha) it gets 99 villages. As it is clear from the notes of the Assistant Cane Commissioner, the Chief Minister has ordered that most of these 208 villages may be given to the New Siwan Mill. This order is carried out under proposal 'Kha',but under it, about 20-22 such villages come as are at a distance of only 2-3 miles from the Purtabpore Mill and the farmers of those villages canalso have some objection on account of it.Hence only after obtaining a clear order from the Chief Minister,the necessary notification will be issued.(Sd.) (illegible) 27-10-67."
(3.) ON 7/11/1967, the Chief Minister passed the following orderon the above note.312 "I agree with the notes as at Kha of page 33. 99 villages be left tothe New Siwan Mill and 109 villages to the Purtabpore Mill. None ofthe two mills will have the right to keep the weigh bridge or sugarcanecollecting centre in the area of each other. (Sd.) Mahamaya Pd. Sinha 7-11-67." ON the basis of this direction the Cane Commissioner made the im-pugned orders on 14/11/1967, which were duly published in theGazette. In the High court the validity of the orders made by the Cane Com-missioner on 14/11/1967, was challenged on six different groundsi.e. (1) that the Cane Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass those orders ;(2) in passing those orders, the Cane Commissioner practically abdicated hisstatutory functions and mechanically implemented the directions issued bythe Chief Minister ; (3) the orders are vitiated as the proceeding before theauthority culminating those orders was a qnasi judicial proceeding andthe authority had failed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellantto represent against the orders proposed to be made ; (4) even if the pro-ceeding in question should be considered as an administrative proceeding asthe orders made involve civil consequence and the proceeding having notbeen conducted consistently with the rules of natural justice, the impugnedorders cannot be sustained ; (5) those orders were passed mala fide and lastly(6) they are discriminatory against the petitioner and hence hit by Article 14of the Constitution. The High court rejected every one of the contentions.It came to the conclusion that the Cane Commissioner who had the powerto make reservation under Clause 6 of the 'order' had also the power tomodify or cancel those reservations in view of Section 21 of the GeneralClauses Act; the impugned orders were that of the Cane Commissionerboth in fact as well as in law ; the proceeding before the Cane Com-missioner which resulted in making the impugned orders is a purely adminis-trative proceeding ; even if it is considered to be quasi-judicial proceeding,reasonable opportunity had been given to the appellant to represent its caseand in fact it had represented its case fully and effectively ; the plea of malafide is unsubstantiated and the orders in question did not contravene Article 14of the Constitution.;