S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioner is M/s. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Limited, Basti and it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it relates to the factory of the Company in Basti. THE factory is engaged in the process of manufactures of crystal sugar by the vacuum pan process. THE petitioner initially challenged the order of the State Government granting licence to the firm of Kasaudhan Sulpher Sugar Mills for manufacturing khandsari in a reserved area allocated and assigned to the petitioner factory. During the pendency of this petition on 19th September, 1988 an application was moved by the petitioner seeking to implead M/s. Chaudhari Sugar Mills Pvt. Limited, Mohammadnagar, district Basti in place of Kasaudhan Sulpher Sugar Mills Limited. The impleadment was sought on the ground that Khandsari unit has been transferred by the owners to Sri Shafat Ali who is running Khandsari unit under the name and style of Chaudhary Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Mohammadnagar, district Basti. This was done by the order of the Deputy Cane Commissioner on 20th December, 1986 and the licence was renewed in favour of Kasaudhan Sulpher Sugar Mills Mohammadnagar district Basti on 23rd November, 1986. This application for impleadment was allowed by this court on 23rd February, 1989. In the circumstances the respondent no. 4 now to the present petition is M/s. Chaudhary Sugar Mils Pvt. Ltd. Mohammadnagar, district Basti. This will hereinafter referred as 'Khandsari Unit.' The present petition was filed in the year of 1977. It has come up for hearing after 13 years. In 1988 a supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner which contains data of cane crushed by the petitioner during the various seasons from 1976-77 on wards till 1987-88. No other supplementary affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances so far as the record is concerned it only contains the facts till the year 1987-88 only. It is not in dispute that crushing season 1987-88 is already over.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The sole argument raised by Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner's factory should have been heard before the licence was renewed in favour of the respondent no. 4, Khandsari unit. His further argument is that it is incumbent upon the State Government to issue notice to the petitioner factory before renewing the licence in favour of the Khandari unit if the Khanesari unit purchases sugar cane from the reserved area of the petitioner factory.;