- (1.) CASE has been called out. None appears for the private respondents though, list has been revised.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Instant writ petition under Article of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the impugned order passed by the trial court with regard to cane purchase centre. The injunction was granted by the trial court with regard to cane purchase centre. Submission is that under Section of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, no injunction could have been granted by the trial court unless notice could have been sent to Government or the officers. Further submission is that cane purchase centre in question was already given to the petitioner against which the aggrieved party filed appeal before the State Government. The trial court exceeded jurisdiction by interfering with the impugned order that too, in a suit where the petitioner has not been impleaded as opposite party.
(3.) ATTENTION has been invited to the judgment and order dated 21.11.2011 passed by this Court whereby, it has been held that civil court could not have interfered with regard to grant of injunction unless notice could have been sent to the Government or officers more so, when the petitioner has not been impleaded as opposite party. The question squarely covers by the judgment and order dated 21.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.555 (M/B) of 2011. The operative portion of the judgment and order is reproduced as under: The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order which has been passed on the basis of consent without impleading the affected sugar mill and without taking into consideration the provision contained in Section of the E.C. Act, is liable to be quashed, carries weight. Though the petitioner was having an option to prefer appeal but since the Division Bench of this Court has admitted the writ petition keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage, it would not be proper to relegate the matter to the appellate authority. In view of above, we do not find any reason to keep the matter pending, more so when the learned Civil Judge exceeded its jurisdiction by passing the impugned order, which, prima facie, appears to be a collusive act and suffers from substantial illegality. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sitapur is set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit and decide expeditiously say, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Registrar of this Court is directed to send this order to Hon'ble the Chief Justice so that in case His Lordship pleases, may institute an enquiry against the concerned Civil Judge for his having exercised jurisdiction in such manner.;