- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. This writ petition has been filed against an order dated 25-1-2003 passed by Special Secretary, Sugar Industries, Anubhag-III, Annexe Bhawan, Lucknow, by which the State Government has, in exercise of appellate powers under Section 15 (4) of U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 read with Rule 23 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (in short the Act and Rules respectively), dismissed the appeal and has upheld the order of Cane Commissioner U. P. at Lucknow dated 27-10-2002, assigning twelve cane centres in favour of S. B. E. C. Sugar Limited, Lovan Malakpur, District Baghpat.
(2.) I have heard Ms. Bharti Sapru for D. C. M. Shriram Industries Ltd. , Unit Daurala Sugar Works, Daurala, Meerut; and Sri Subodh Kumar for Respondent No. 4. The Cane Commissioner by his order dated 27-10-2002 assigned twelve cane centres, namely, Binoli-I, Binoli-II, Jiwana Gulivan- I/makhar; Jiwana-II, Jiwana-III, Ranchar-I, Raochar-II; Ranchar- III; Sirsalgarh-I; Sirsalgarh-II; Fazalpur-I and Fazalpur-II, to S. B. E. C. Sugar Limited Loyan Malakpur, Respondent No. 3. Petitioner filed an appeal, as above, inter alia, on the grounds that in crushing season 2002-2003, the crushing capacity of petitioner factory is 7000 TCD and that a letter of intent had been received from the Central Government on 25-2-1994 for increasing the crushing capacity to 8000 TCD. The factory has demanded 126 lacs quintals sugarcane to be reserved for the factory of the year 2000-2003. In the last three years, the factory has to purchase sugarcane from the areas, outside the reserved area, for which the permission had to be taken from Cane Commissioner. He has not taken into consideration the relevant factors under Rule 22 of the Rules. That the aforesaid twelve cane centres were reserved for the appellant and they have been arbitrarily assigned to Malakpur Sugar Mills. In the year 2000- 2001, the reserved cane centres Raochar-A and Ranchar-B were assigned to Malakpur Sugar Mills against which an appeal was filed which was allowed by the Special Secretary, Sugarcane Industries on 19-4- 2001. Against the same order, Malakpur Sugar Mills had filed an appeal in respect of reservation of cane centres Ranchar-II-B; Jiwana Gulivan-B-I & II, Binoli-I-A; Binoli-II-B and Sirsalgarh-I-A, in favour of appellant. The appeal was dismissed by the State Government on 29-4-2002. The appellant has made considerable investment for development of entire area, including twelve cane centres and had sown early riping variety of Sugarcane in 349 acres. Appellant also challenged that drawl percentage calculated by the Cane Commissioner on which demand was fixed at 242. 91 lac quintals. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the State Government on the following grounds: (A) In the previous crushing season, Daurala Sugar Mills crushed 119. 39 lac quintals whereas it had 252 lac quintals of sugarcane in its reserved and assigned area which comes to 47. 12%. (B) In the present year, appellant's requirement has been assessed at 126 lac quintals for which they have been given 244. 48 lac quintals sugarcane at the drawl percentage of 51. 53% whereas Malakpur Sugar Mills at the capacity of 4500 TCD, has crushed 87-84 lac quintials while it had 187. 80 lac quintals sugarcane in its reserved and assigned area of previous year, which comes to 63. 74%. (C) Malakpur Sugar Mills has started crushing much before the other sugar mills, and that this year their need has been assessed at 94. 50 lac quintals against which 177 lac quintals sugarcane was made available. (D) From the record, it is found that cane centres are much nearer to Malakpur Sugar Mills. (E) The societies and farmers have shown their willingness for assignment to Malakpur Sugar Mills. (F) Malakpur Sugar Mills has made better arrangements for the pavement in the previous year and started crushing much before the other Sugar Mills. (G) It is clear from the order of cane Commissioner that appellant sugar mills has sufficient sugarcane available to it as compared to its requirements.
(3.) THE Special Secretary accepted the fact that there is an error in the reservation order inasmuch as the cane centres, included in the reserved area of appellant, have been assigned to Malakpur Sugar Mills whereas the same cane centres were shown to have been assigned in the reserved area of Malakpur. This was found as an error for which orders were issued for necessary corrections and the appeal was dismissed. Ms. Bharti Sapru submits that the appellate authority has failed to take into consideration all the relevant factors given in Rule 22 of the Rules of 1954, and has laid emphasis only on distance factor, ignoring other factors. She has also challenged drawl percentage, and has submitted that the petitioner sugar mill has made considerable investment for development of these cane centres for a number of years. She also submits that petitioner has adequate modern transport facilities for transportation, and that the distance factor is no longer a relevant or significant factor to be taken into account, and has relied upon the judgments of this Courts in U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. State of U. P. & others, 1995 (2) JCLR 844 (SC); 1995 A. W. C. 637, and Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, 2000 (2) A. W. C. 1014.;