- (1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 had filed a caveat and was served with a copy of the writ petition a week ago on 7-2-2006. Shri Navin Sinha, senior advocate assisted by Shri Ajeet. Ray appearing for the respondent No. 4 has been heard at length. We have also heard Shri Ravindra Singh for respondent No. 3 and the Standing Counsel for the remaining two'respondents. After the conclusion of hearing Sri Sinha was asked whether the respondent No. 4 wants to file a-counter affidavit or wants final disposal of the writ petition. Sri Sinha stated that the respondent No. 4 does not propose to file any counter affidavit because the material facts are not in dispute.
(2.) In the original order of reservation of areas by the Cane Commissioner dated 21-10-2005, the respondent No. 4 was given 30 purchase centers; and the purchase center known as Guleria was not given to respondent No. 4, but was "given to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal to the State Government demanding Guleria and two other purchase centres.
(3.) In the appeal the State Government by order dated 16-12-2005 remitted the matter back to the Cane Commissioner for reconsideration. Pursuant the remand, the Cane Commissioner heard the parties again and passed a detailed order dated 28-12-2005 saying that none of the eight criteria mentioned in (a) to (h) of Rule 22 of The U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Rules, 1954 were shown to be in favour of the Respondent No. 4. The Cane Commissioner therefore maintained the original reservation. The respondent No. 4 did not challenge that order dated 28-12-2005 by way of appeal or by a writ petition.;