S.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) BEING aggriieved by an order passed by the State Government dismissing the appeal of the petitioner a sugar producer and affirming the order passed by the Cane Coamissioner assigning the purchase centre 'Tinich' falling within the area reserved for the petitioner, to Babhnan Sugar Mill, respondent no 3 another sugar producer, it has now approached this Court seeking quashing of the appellate order and a direction requiring the State Government and the Cane Commissioner to allow the petitioner to purchase sugar cane from the cane purchase centre "Tinich" from the willing cane growers for the crushing season 1993 -94.
(2.) THE facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case He in a narrow compass By an order dated 1-11-93 the Cane Commissioner, after taking Into consideration the crushing capacity of the Sugar Mills, availability of the sugar cane requirement of sugar production and other factors had reserved the areas having purchase centres Mildwar, Tinich (Rail), Kanchanpur Upathi. Athdama, Bhitehara, Ruchaull, Chandradeep Ghat, and Piraila in favour of the Basti Sugar Company Limited Walterganj subject to the assignment or' the purchase centre 'Tinich' to Babhnan Sugar Mills It may be noticed that as in evident from the Circular issued by the Cane Commissioner dated 2-7-93, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the petition, the order da.cd 1-11-93 had been passed on the estimate that duration of the crushing season 1993-94 would be 180/200 days and during the season the total requirement of sugar cane of the petitioner would be 20.70 lac quintals It appears that in view of some stay order issued by the Apex Court, the functioning of the petitioner sugar company was stopped. In this view of the matter, considering the interest of the cane growers some alterations were made in the order dated 1-11-9.) assigning various centres falling within the reserved area for the petitioner sugar Mill to others. Subsequently, when the stay order was vacated, the Cane Commissioner passed another order on 27-11-93 whereby all the cane purchase centres referred to hereinbefore excepting 'Tinich' were restored back to the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner, appears to Have felt aggrieved by the order assigning the purchase centre Tinich' in favour of Biibhnan Sugar Ml! and therefore, challenged the same by filing an appeal before the State Government which remedy stands provided under section 15 (4) of the U. P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and purchase!. Act, 1953 read with rule 23 of the Rules framed thereunder. In the appeal referred to above the petitioner inter alia, emphasised that the purchasing centre 'Tinich'-a rail centre was one of its major cane purchasing centre that considering the cane requirement of its factory which was already short of sugar cane supply the same was aggravated by snatching away its Tinich cane purchasing centre, that this 'purchase centre Tinich' stood reserved for the petitioner since its inception and during 1991-92 the petitioner had 3.54 lac quintal of sugar cane from this centre and had spent huge amounts in development of this area; that the petitioner had already made arrangement for the purchase of cane at this centre and was maintaining railway siding for the purchase of sugar cane which was directly brought from this centre to the factory of the Petitioner and it was paying approximately 3.00 lacs every year on maintenance of railway sidmg besides Rs 3 00 lac for conversion of meter gauge to broad gauge in the year 1986-87 had been incurred by it;