ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Chaudhary, for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yashwant Verma and Sri V.B. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V.K. Upadhya, for respondent No. 3, Sri Atul Mehra for respondent No. 4 and learned standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25th October, 2004 passed by Cane Commissioner and the order dated 21st November, 2004 passed by appellate authority under Section 15(4) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A writ, order or direction of appropriate nature has further been prayed commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner on five cane centres, namely, Matlabpur -I, Matlabpur -III, Chaglad -l, Chaglad -II and Chaglad III. Brief facts of the case, as emerge from pleadings of the parties, are; petitioner is a new sugar unit established at village Agwanpur, district Moradabad in the year 1999 -2000. The dispute in the writ petition is with regard to five cane purchase centres, namely, Matlabpur -I, Matlabpur -III, Chaglad -I Chaglad -II and Chaglad -III which cane purchase centres were within the reserved area of petitioner's unit since its very establishment. In the crushing season 2003 -04, the aforesaid five centres were included in the reserved area of the petitioner vide order dated 7th November, 2003 of the Cane Commissioner. The Cane Commissioner vide subsequent order dated 11th December, 2003 assigned the aforesaid five cane centres to respondent No. 3 which was challenged by the petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 6243(MB) of 2003 which writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 17th December, 2003 setting aside the order of the Cane Commissioner dated 11th December, 2003 and the matter was remanded to the Cane Commissioner to pass fresh order after hearing. The Cane Commissioner vide subsequent order dated 23rd December, 2003 passed an order permitting joint purchase to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 from aforesaid five cane purchase centres. Against the order dated 23rd December, 2003, an appeal was filed by the petitioner which was rejected by the order dated 23rd January, 2004. A writ petition being Writ Petition No. 578 (MB) of 2004 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23rd December, 2003 and 23rd January, 2004. This Court vide interim order dated 28th February, 2004 stayed both the orders passed by the Cane Commissioner. The said interim order is still continuing and the writ petition is pending. For the crushing season 2004 -05, the Cane Commissioner vide his order dated 17th July, 2003 passed an order under Section 12 (2) of the Act estimating quantity of 99 lacs quintals of sugarcane for the petitioner. The reservation order was passed by the Cane Commissioner with regard to petitioner on 25th October, 2004 by which availability of 73.56 lacs quintals of sugarcane was estimated for to the petitioner for the crushing season 2004 -05. By the same order, the five cane purchase centres mentioned above were assigned to respondent No. 3. The order of the Cane Commissioner further noted that for the crushing season 2003 -04 the requirement of the petitioner had been fixed 81 lacs quintals and in the said crushing season 46.46 lacs quintals was crushed and the average drawl of the petitioner was 41 per cent. The cane assigned to the petitioner in the crushing season was 112.9 lacs quintals. With regard to respondent No. 3 order under Section 15 of the Act was passed by the Cane Commissioner on 25 October, 2004 estimating the requirement of sugarcane for the crushing season 2004 -05 as 180 lacs quintals. The order further noted that for the crushing season 2003 -04 the requirement of respondent No. 3 was assessed as 198 lacs quintals. The total cane reserved/assigned in that year was 326.27 lacs quintals against which respondent No. 3 had crushed 143.88 lacs quintals and its drawl was 44 percent. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 15(4) of the Act challenging the order dated 25th October, 2004 impleading respondent No. 3 as respondent. The petitioner challenged in the appeal the assignment of above mentioned five cane purchase centres to respondent No. 3. The appellate authority vide its order dated 29 November, 2003 dismissed the appeal of the M, petitioner against which order the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) SRI S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order, submitted that.;