- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. The dispute in the present writ petition is with regard to the reservation of cane centre Memon, which has been carved out from the cane centre Hamidpur Makhan prior to the passing of the cane reservation order for this crushing season. For the current crushing season 2005-06, the cane reservation order for the Respondent No. 3-Sugar Mill was issued by the Cane Commissioner on 17-10- 2005, whereby the new cane centre Memon was reserved in favour of said. Respondent No. 3 Sugar Mill. The cane reservation order for the petitioner-Sugar Mill was issued by the Cane Commissioner on 18-10-2005 and the original cane centre Hamidpur Makhan remained reserved for the petitioner-Sugar Mill. Aggrieved by the order of reservation of new cane center memon in favour of Respondent No. 3- Sugar Mill, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 5 (38)/2005 before the Respondent No. 1. By the order dated 31-1-2006 the Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and hence this writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Sri Yashwant Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for State- respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Sri A. K. Mishra for contesting Respondent No. 3 and Sri Ravindra Singh for Respondent No. 4-Cane Co-operative Society, Nazibabad. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the contesting parties and with the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. The appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed merely on technical ground that the petitioner did not challenge the reservation of cane centre Memon which was reserved in favour of Respondent No. 3 Sugar Mill by the Cane Reservation order dated 17-10-2005, whereas the only prayer made in the appeal was for inclusion of the said centre in the reserved area of the petitioner-Sugar Mill. The other ground for dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is that the new cane centre Memon had been carved out on the request of Respondent No. 3 and hence the same was rightly reserved in its favour. The contention of the petitioner is that his other submissions relating to the merits of the case have not been dealt with. On merits it was contended that the requirements of the petitioner- Sugar Mill was assessed at 93. 52 lac quintals, whereas that of respondent No. 3. Sugar Mill was assessed at 54 Lac quintats; that the cane allotted to the petitioner-Sugar Mill was 156. 10 lac quintals, whereas that of Respondent No. 3 Sugar Mill was 117. 80 lac quintals, and that the petitioner would have to achieve a drawal rate of 60% of fulfill its requirement whereas the Respondent No. 3 Sugar Mill would have to achieve a drawal rate of only 46% of fulfill its requirement. It has been contended that in the last crushing session the petitioner-Sugar Mill had achieved a drawal rate of 40% and the Respondent No. 3- Sugar Mill had achieved only 29%. It has thus been urged that in case if the Respondent No. 3 is also required to achieve the same drawal rate as that of the petitioner, then it would have excess sugarcane than its assessed requirement. The further submission is that the Respondent No. 3 Sugar Mill should not be given any advantage of reserving any extra area of cane centre because of its own inability of having lesser drawal.
(3.) FROM a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the said submissions of the petitioner have not been dealt with. Even regarding the technical ground on which the appeal has been rejected, the contention of the petitioner has force that the prayer made in the appeal for reserving the cane center Memon in favour of the petitioner was sufficient and his appeal could not have been rejected for the said reason. As regards the mention in the appellate order that cane centre Memon was bifurcated on the request of the Respondent No. 3 Sugar Mill, the petitioner contends that from the records it is clear that the request for such bifurcation was initially made by the petitioner-Sugar Mill, whereas the Respondent No. 3 Sugar Mill as well as the Respondent No. 40 Cane Cooperative Society contend that it was on their request that the new cane centre Memon was created. The appellate authority has not given its specific finding in this regard as to whether the petitioner-Sugar Mill has also made a proposal for said the centre or not. Sri A. K. Misra states that in reply to all such submission of the petitioner-Sugar Mill made on merits before the appellate authority, the Respondent No. 3 had also submitted a detailed reply, and after considering the same, the appellate authority was satisfied with such reply on merits and had thus dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.;