- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. The dispute in this writ petition pertains to the 7 cane centres, namely, (i) Paharpur-ll; (ii) Kunda/pinai- II; (ii) Niloha-IV; (iv) Naglashekhu-ll; (v) Navipur/lalpur-ll; (vi) Nagli Sadharanpur-ll; and (vii) In-choli-lll. For the current crushing season 2005-06, the said centres were reserved in favour of the petitioner M/s. Mawana Sugar Ltd. (for short 'petitioner- mill') and assigned in favour of Respondent No. 3 D. C. M. Sriram In dustries Ltd. , unit Daurala Sugar Works (for short 'respondent- mill" ).
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that for the current crushing season 2005-06, for the petitioner and respon dent mills, two separate orders dated 1-10-2005 were passed by the Cane Commissioner under Section 15 (1) of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (for short the Act' ). By such orders (which are commonly known as the Yeservation orders'), cane centres were reserved and assigned in favour of the two sugar mills. For the crushing seasons 2002-03 to 2005-06, the re quirement of cane for the petitioner and respondent mills was assessed by the Cane Commissioner earlier on 5-A 2003, at 180 lac quintals and 140 lac quintals respectively. After determining the drawal percentage of the petitioner and the respondent mills at 61% and 74% respectively, by the reservation orders, the required yield of cane of the areas of the two mills, as per their respective drawal percentage, was assessed at 295. 08 lac quintals and 189. 8 lac quintals respectively. THE produc tion of sugar cane in the areas of both the sugar mills was assessed at 680. 20 quintals per hectare. On this basis it was provided that for availability of 180 and 140 lac quintals of cane to the two sugar mills, the required yield of cane for the said sugar mills could be made available from 43, 381 hectares and 27, 813 hectares respectively. On the aforesaid basis, the total area allotted (which included the reserved and as signed areas) by the reservation order to the petitioner-mill was 43, 705 hec tares, which would have a yield of 297. 28 lacs quintal sugarcane; and 28, 218 hectares to the respondent-mill, which would have a yield of 191. 94 lac quintals sugarcane. Since, by the aforesaid reservation order, the seven cane centres in dispute, though reserved in favour of the petitioner-mill, w ere assigned to the respondent- mill, the petitioner-mill filed an appeal before the State Government under Section 15 (4) of the Act. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 30-11-2005 the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 1) partly al lowed the appeal of the petitioner and decided that three cane centres, name ly, Paharpur-II; Kunda/pinai-II; and Niloha-IV, which were reserved for the petitioner-mill and assigned to respon dent- mill, would revert to the petitioner-mill; and assignment of the other four cane centres, namely, Naglashekhu-II; Navipur/lalpur- II; Naglisadharanpur-II; and Incholi-III was to remain in favour of respondent-mill. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the mills filed separate writ petitions. The petitioner-mill filed Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005 before Lucknow Bench of this Court, whereas the respondent-mill preferred Writ Petition No. 75321 of 2005 at Al lahabad. Though the writ petition of the petitioner-mill filed before Lucknow Bench of this Court remained pending, the Writ Petition No. 75321 of 2005 filed by respondent- mill was decided by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 12-1-2006. By the said judgment, after setting aside the ordor dated 30-11-2005, the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 1) for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made therein. Till the ap peal was decided afresh, it was directed that status quo was to be maintained with regard to purchase of cane from the centres in question. On remand of the case, the Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 20-2-2006 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-mill in toto and thus, all the seven cane centres reserved for the petitioner-mill were to remain assigned to the respondent-mill. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner- mill has filed this writ petition. I have heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Yashwant Verma, on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Sri S. R Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Chaudhary, on behalf of the con testing respondent-mill. Learned Stand ing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel for the Cane Coopera tive Development Unions, Respondents No. 4 and 5 have also been heard. Counter and rejoinder affidavits be tween the contesting parties have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided at this stage.
(3.) THE Appellate Authority has dis missed the appeal of the petitioner-mill mainly on three grounds. Firstly, that the total area available with the petitioner-mill in the previous year was 43, 834 hectares whereas this year it is 43, 706 hectares, which is 128 hectares less than the previous year; and the total area available to the respondent-mill in the previous year was 37, 232 hectares whereas in the present year it is 28, 218 hectares, which is 9, 014 hectares less than the previous year, which is com paratively much more than the area which has been reduced in the case of the petitioner-mill. Secondly, that the reduction in the area was because of re-zoning on account of establishment of new sugar mills in the area and since the petitioner did not complain of there being shortage of sugarcance in the pre vious year, no further allotment of area was required to be made for the petitioner. Thirdly, that because of re-zoning of the areas, the various factors enumerated in Rule 22 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (for short the Rules') lose its efficacy and what is re quired to be considered is that by reser vation or assignment, all the sugar mills are allotted sufficient sugarcane. Lastly it has also been stated that according to the respondent-mill, it needs more cane as it has increased its crushing capacity from 8, 000 to 10, 000 TCD and its drawal is fixed at 74%, whereas that of the petitioner-mill is fixed at only 61%, hence in case if there is shortage of sugarcane for the petitioner- mill, it can increase its drawal and fulfill its requirement. Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the orders pertain ing to the requirement of cane for the two Sugar Mills have been passed in separate proceedings under Section 12 (2) of the Act on 5-7-2003 which, for the petitioner and respondent mills, is assessed at 180 lac quintals and 140 lac quintals respectively and as such, the same cannot be in dispute in the present proceedings. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the drawal percent age of the petitioner and respondent-mills was fixed by the reservation order itself and the respondent-mill did not challenge the reservation order, it would now riot be open to the respondent-mill to raise the question of drawal in these proceedings. The further contention is that in its proposal given to the Cane Commissioner before the issuance of the reservation order, the respondent- mill had not even included the seven disputed and centres and as such the said centres could not be assigned in their favour, more-so when the Cane Cooperative Development Unions had also sent their proposals in favour of the petitioner-mill.;