G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ petitions are directed against the same orders passed by Special Secretary, Government of U. P. and Cane Commissioner, U. P. therefore they are being disposed of by a common order. Writ Petition No. 54711 of 1999 shall be treated as the leading case.
(2.) M /s. Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited (Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 54711 of 1999) has a Sugar Mill at Khatauli in the district of Muzaffarnagar while M/s. SEIL Limited (Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 54853 of 1999) has a Sugar Mill at Mawana in the district of Meerut. M/s. Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. respondent No. 4 has set up a new Sugar Mill in Tikaula in the district of Muzaffarnagar, which started production in the year 1998-99. U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply And Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been enacted to regulate the supply of sugarcane required for use in sugar factories. The Cane Commissioner, U.P. exercising powers under Section 15 of the Act passed on order on 25-10-1999 assigning purchase centers to various Sugar Mills including the petitioners of the two writ petitions and respondent No. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Cane Commissioner, the two petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 preferred separate appeals before the State Government under sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act. The appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 was allowed by the order dated 18-12-1999 and the order dated 25-10-1999 of the Cane Commissioner was set aside. The Cane Commissioner was directed to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh reservation order with regard to certain purchase centers originally assigned to Mawana and Khatauli Sugar Mills in the light of the discussion and facts mentioned in the Appellate order. Thereafter, the Cane Commissioner passed a fresh order on 20-11-1999 whereby the purchase centers mentioned in the operative part of the order passed by the State Government and which had earlier been assigned in favour of Mawana and Khatauli Sugar Mills were assigned in favour of Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. (respondent No. 4). M/s. Triveni Enginnering and Industries Limited filed writ petition No. 54711 of 1999 impleading (1) State of U. P. (2) Special Secretary, Government of U. P. Chini Udyog Anubagh 3 (3) Cane Commissioner, U. P. and (4) M/s. Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. as respondents. The prayer clause of the writ petition has some bearing on the controversy raised and therefore it is being reproduced below :- a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned order dated 18-12-99 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition; b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned order dated 20-12-99 passed by the respondent No. 3 filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition; c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Cane Commissioner to modify the reservation order for the year 1999-2000 and thereafter so that the cane area reserved for each factory is proportionate to their individual requirements of sugarcane; d) pass such other or further suitable orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; e) award costs in favour of the petitioners.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the order of the Cane Commissioner, the petitioners preferred the present writ petitions in which the following order was passed by the Division Bench :- "Honble A. A. Desai-J Honble Bhagwan Din-J Heard Sri S. C. Maheshwari assisted by Sri Vineet Saran, counsel for the petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Rakesh Dwivedi appearing for respondent No. 4 and perused the papers. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a statement that he is confining to relief No. 2 and giving up relief No. 1. The respondent No. 4 is granted 10 days time to file counter-affidavit. The Chief Standing Counsel may file counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 3 within the same time. List on 12th January, 2000. Till then the operation of the order dated 20-12-99 passed by the Cane Commissioner shall remain stayed. 23-12-99" Exactly similar order was passed in writ petition No. 54853 of 1999.;