B.M.Lal - (1.) BY instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari declaring impugned notificationdated 1-6-1991 (Annexure 5) to petition) as void' and violative of Constitution and quashing the same along with another notification dated 16-12-71 (Annexure 12 to petition) and for issuance of another writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to charge 'society's commission' from the petitioners at a rate exceeding 70 paise per quintal of sugarcane and not to issue any recovery certificate for the same and further declaring that the petitioners are free to purchase sugarcane directly from sugarcane growers.
(2.) IT would not be out of place to mention here that on 20-7-1993 this petition was argued by learned senior advocate Mr. Shanti Bhushan on behalf of petitioners. Learned senior advocate Mr. Murlidhar and learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents prayed for and were granted time to file counter affidavit with the consent of learned counsel appearing for respective parties, case was fixed for 3-8-93 but on account of strike of lawyers case could not be taken up on that date. In the mean time affidavits were exchanged and thereafter having heard learned counsel for respective parties at length case was closed for judgment. Mr. Murlidhar, learned senior advocate and Mr. Rakeandjf Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition as framed and filed, on the ground that in respect of same subject matter earlier writ petition No. 33139 of 1991 had been withdrawn without permission to file fresh petition, consequently on the analogy of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, instant petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel further contended that the notification dated 24-4-92 (Annexure 7 to petition) came into force for stipulated period with effect from 1-10-91 to 30-9-92 and expired on 30-9-92 by efflux of time consequently, the temporary rules contained in notification dated 24-4-92 suspending principal Rules and substituting other rules came to an end, not by repeal of the temporary notification dated 24-4-92 but by the efflux of the prescribed time, at a result of which the moment temporary notification expired, the earlier existing rule automatically resumed its full force. ?As such on 1-10-92, temporarily substituted Rules contained in notification dated 24-4-92 ceased to exist and earlier existing rules contained in notification dated 1-6-91 (Annexre 5 to petition) came into full force automatically.
(3.) BEFORE deciding the preliminary objection as raised by the learned counsel, it would be better to have relevant facts of the case in this regard. The petitioners are engaged in the business of production and sale of sugar. They purchase sugarcane through cane growers co-operative societies. For regulating purchase of sugarcane 'U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953' (for short the Act) was enacted. Under the Act 'Cane growers co-operative society' may be formed and (registered. The main objects and functions of such societies are to promote the welfare of the individual growers.;