- (1.) The petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.
(2.) . U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been enacted to regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane requiredfor use in Sugar Factories. The Cane Commissioner exercising powers under Section 15 of the Act passed an order on Nov. 9, 1994 assigning 'Khurpiya Farm' to the petitioner Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Kichha Sugar Mill). Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Cane Commissioner, M/s. Keshar Enterprises Ltd. Baheri respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as Baheri Sugar Mill) preferred an appeal before the State Government under subsection (4) of Section 15 of the Act. The appeal was allowed by the order dated 19/01/1995 and the order of the Cane Commissioner was modified and 'Khurpiya Farm' was assigned to Baheri Sugar Mill. The present writ petition has been filed by Kichha Sugar Mill for quashing of the aforesaid order.
(3.) Sri V.K. Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 905 of 1995 (U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Rampur v. State of U.P. and others) decided on Feb. 15, 1995 has urged that it is obligatory upon the State Government to hear the concerned factory and Cane Growers Co-operative Society while deciding an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act. He has further urged that the Appellate Authority has also to take into consideration the facility of transport, previous reservation and assignment orders, views of the Cane Growers Co-operative Society, arrangements made by the Factory for payment of price etc. in previous years and efforts made by the factory in developing the area apart from the distance of the factory and quantity of cane to be crushed in terms of Rule 22 of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Learned counsel has submitted that the Appellate Authority, after noticing the fact that Khurpiya Form was at a distance of only 3-4 Kms. from the gate of Kichha Sugar Mill but was 19 Kms. from Baheri Sugar Mill, did not take into consideration this important aspect of the matter while passing the final order. It is also urged that all the relevant factors which the Appellate Authority is bound to take into consideration interms of Rule 22 of the Rules as emphasised in the decision of this Court in writ petition No. 905 of 1995 has not been taken into consideration. Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that though the appeal before the State Government was preferred by Baheri Sugar Mill, but the said appeal was not at the instance of a Sugar Mill, but at the instance of a Cane Grower and therefore the provisions of Rule 22 cannot be pressed into service in order to balance the claim of two rival sugar mills.;