- (1.) PRADEEP Kant Notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3 notice has been accepted by Madhu Singh and on behalf of respondent No. 4 notice has been accepted by Sri Sushil Kumar and Dr. R. K. Srivastava.
(2.) AFTER hearing the parties' Counsel, with their consent, we have proceeded to decide the writ petition finally. Since both the petitions involve the same controversy, though with respect to different cane purchase centres, and common question of law, we connect the two petitions and decide the same finally, with the consent of the parties' Counsel, the respondents being represented by their respective Counsel. The dispute relates to the allotment of cane purchase centres for the crushing season 2004-05. The petitioner, Venus Sugar Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, who has filed Writ Petition No. 5581 (MB) of 2004 as a sugar factory, which is commonly known as Majhawali Sugar Factory, engaged in manufacture of sugar through vacuum pan process.
(3.) THE reservation order was passed by the Cane Commissioner on 25-10-04, in which cane centres Baniyather-I, Baniyather-II, Sahaspur, Bahoranpur and Dadola were assigned to the respondent No. 4, namely, D. S. M. Sugar, Asmoli, District Moradabad. This order is contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. Soon thereafter, another order dated 29-10-04 was passed by the Cane Commissioner stating that the petitioner Sugar Mills have made some representation on 27-10-04, which was forwarded through the State Government to the Cane Commissioner, in which it was stated that the Sugar Mill in whose favour these centres have been assigned, feeling aggrieved by the assignment made in favour of the petitioner sugar mill, earlier i. e. in previous crushing season, had preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the State Government, which order was upheld by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court and, therefore, these centres be assigned in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4, D. S. M. Sugar, Asmoli, challenged the aforesaid order dated 29-10-04 by means of writ petition No. 5298 (MB) of 2004. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground of availability of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 15 (4) of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 with a direction that in case appeal is preferred by the petitioner (respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition) within two weeks from the date of order, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, after hearing the parties within six weeks thereafter. It appears that the respondent No. 4, did not approach the appellate authority nor filed appeal but the Cane Commissioner, on the alleged demand of the farmers and public representatives, modified the aforesaid order dated 29-10-04 and assigned the aforesaid five centres again to the respondent No. 4.;