Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vivek Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Yashwant Varma, assisted by Ms. Rohma Hameed on behalf of contesting respondent No. 3. Sri R.D. Khare has accepted notice for respondent No. 4 and Sri Atul Mehra for respondent No. 5. Counter affidavit on behalf of contesting respondent No. 3 has been filed, to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed today. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
(2.) By the cane reservation order dated 15.10.2005 for the crushing season 2005-06, the three centres in dispute, namely, Nanhera-A, Nanhera-B and Sultanpur were reserved in favour of respondent No. 4, Amroha unit of the State Sugar Corporation, but were assigned in favour of the petitioner Dewan Sugar Mill. Aggrieved by the said order of assignment, the respondent No. 3, Uppar Gangej Sugar Mill and the respondent No. 4, Amroha Unit of the State Sugar Corporation filed two separate Appeals No. 5/141/05 and 5/156/05 respectively. By the impugned order dated 18.1.2006 the appeal of respondent No. 3 has been decided whereby the three centres which were assigned in favour of the petitioner have now been assigned in favour of respondent No. 3. It is admitted to the parties that the appeal of respondent No. 4 is still pending decision.
(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the appeal of the respondent No. 4, which is also with regard to the same three centres, is still pending, the appeal of respondent No. 3 has been decided which ought not to have been done as both the appeals should have been heard and decided together. It has further been submitted that although the case of the petitioner before the appellate authority has been noted in the impugned order but has not been considered by the said authority before assigning the three centres in question in favour of respondent No. 3. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has shortage of sugarcane and considering the same, the Cane Commissioner had assigned the three centres in favour of the petitioner Mill, which should not have been interfered with by the appellate authority.;