KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2006-11-184
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 07,2006

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. The petitioner is an old sugar mill. Respondent No. 4 Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Is a new sugar mill which started manufacturing sugar during last crushing season of 2005-06 and in that season had effectively functioned for 48 days. The areas from where cane is procured by the two sugar factories are common or adjacent. This has given rise to the rivalry between the two to capture the same areas for having exclusive right to procure the sugar cane.
(2.) IN order to regulate the supply of sugar cane to the sugar factories and to avoid or minimize such rivalry and its consequent adverse effect upon the sugar factories as well as cane growers U. P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 has been enacted (hereinafter referred to as "u. P. Act of 1953" ). Under Section 15 of the Act, concept of `reserved area' and `assigned area' has been provided. Section 15 (2) reads: `where any area has been declared as reserved area for a factory, the occupier of such factory shall, if so directed by the Cane Commissioner, purchase all the cane grown in that area, which is offered for sale to the factory". Similarly under Section 15 (3) of the Act it is provided "where any area has been declared as assigned area for a factory, the occupier of such factory shall purchase such quantity of cane grown in that area and offered for sale to the factory as may be determined by the Cane Commissioner". A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that in reserved areas the factory concerned has got exclusive right as well as liability to purchase all the cane grown in that area which is offered for sale to it while in respect of assigned area only such quantity of offered cane is to be purchased which may be determined by the Cane Commissioner. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid two provisions it also implies that no area can be reserved for more than one factory, however an area may be assigned to more than one factory and quantity of the offered cane to be purchased by each of the factories from the assigned area may be determined by the Cane Commissioner. However, according to the learned Counsel for both the parties there is no major difference between reservations and assigning of areas to a particular factory and in respect of assigned areas also the factory is entitled and liable to purchase all the cane grown in that area which is offered for sale. The cause of dispute between the two factories is the action of U. P. Cane Commissioner of taking out 21 cane growing areas from the list of areas which were for several previous years reserved with the petitioner factory and assigning them to the factory of respondent No. 4. The said orders were passed by the Cane Commissioner on 6-10-2006 and are contained in Annexures '3' and '4' to the writ petition. Annexure '3' is in respect of the petitioner's factory and Annexure '4' is in respect of factory of respondent No. 4. However, in the schedules annexed alongwith the said orders it is mentioned that the disputed 21 areas have been assigned to both the factories.
(3.) THE list of 21 disputed areas starts from Ratanpur I and ends with Pilkhana. In the order in respect of the petitioner the said areas are mentioned in Khand II and in the order in respect of respondent No. 4 they are mentioned in the Khand (1-Kha ). Under the Act of 1953 it is provided under Section 12 that the Cane Commissioner may for the purposes of Section 15 require the factory to furnish in specified manner an estimate of the quantity of the cane, which will be required by it during ensuing crushing season. Under Section 12 (2) it is provided that Cane Commissioner after examining the estimate shall publish the same with such modifications, if any, as he may make. Under sub-section (3) of the said Section it is provided that the estimate under sub-section (2) may be revised by an authority to be prescribed. Similarly under Section 15 (4) it is provided that an appeal shall lie to the State Government against the order of the Cane Commissioner declaring reserved and assigned areas.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.