- (1.) We have heard Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri Ashish Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Sri Atul Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for quashing the orders dated 2nd December, 2010 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition); 2nd December, 2010 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) and 27th October, 2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) reserving various sugarcane purchase centres mentioned in the said orders in favour of the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 respectively, for the year 2010-11. The said orders have been passed by the Cane Commissioner in purported exercise of his powers under section 15 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 read with Rule 22 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 and Clause 6(1)(a) of the U.P. Sugarcane Control Order, 1966.
(2.) Sub-section (4) of section 15 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 inter alia provides that an appeal shall lie to the State Government against the order of the Cane Commissioner passed under sub-section (1) of the said section. Thus, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeals against the aforesaid orders passed by the Cane Commissioner reserving various purchase centres respectively in favour of the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7.
(3.) Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the present writ petition, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy available to him under sub-section (4) of section 15 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed on the said ground.;