- (1.) DR. B. S. Chauhan, J. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19-10-1995 Annexure 5 to the writ petition, by which the respondent No. 2 included certain sugarcane purchase centres in the areas reserved for the respondent No. 3. Previously the same had been included in the area of the petitioner. ,
(2.) THE factual gamut of the case reveals that the petitioner is a very old sugar factory and respondent No. 3 established its sugar industry only in the year 1990 and since then there is a continuous litigation between the two sugar industries. THE dispute for the purpose of the instant petition is in a very narrow compass, i. e. to give effect to the terms of Section 15 of the U. P. Sugar Cane (Regulations of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the provisions of Rule 23 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954, (hereinafter called 'the Rules' ). The petitioner had challenged the intent to establish the said factory by the respondent No. 3 before the Delhi High Court and it was disposed of by the judg ment dated 31-3-92. The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Union of India, AIR 1993 Delhi 219. The grievance of the petitioner was found to be premature at that time. However, it was held that area reserved for one factory under Section 15 of the Act cannot be transferred to another factory without affording an oppor tunity of hearing to the factory whose area was likely to be disturbed. It was further directed that in future whenever an area reserved for the petitioner is disturbed and given an effective hearing by the Cane Commissioner. There was further litigation between the parties in Delhi High Court and Writ Petition No. 3186 of 1991 was disposed of by the Delhi High Court vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition, wherein it was held that the respondents should not alter or transfer any portion of the reserved area allotted to the petitioner in favour of any other Mill owner without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the said writ petition the State of U. P. had filed the counter affidavit wherein it was admitted by the State that the petitioner had developed the cane area as required under the law and there was no complaint of any kind against the petitioner and if any area which had earlier been reserved for the petitioner is altered, it would not only interfere with the reserved area of the petitioner but also seriously prejudice and diminish the supply of sugarcane of the petitioner. Directions issued by the Delhi High Court were not complied by the respondent No. 2 and certain area reserved for the petitioner earlier, was declared reserved in favour of the respondent No. 3. Petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred the appeal before the State Government under Section 15 (4) of the Act for the crushing season of 1993-94 which was disposed of by the appellate authority vide order dated 4-5- 94, Annexure 6 to the writ petition, holding that no substantive relief could be granted for the crushing season as the season had come to an end. However, it was directed that for the next crushing season, respondent No. 2, Cane Commissioner would give effective hearing to the petitioner before carving out any part from the area which had earlier been reserved for the petitioner.
(3.) FOR the crushing season of 1994-95 certain sugarcane purchase centres 'which had earlier been reserved for the petitioner were included in the area reserved for the respondent No. 3 and that too without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the State was dis posed of vide order dated 28-2-1995 and by that time it was found not feasible to grant any substantive relief in favour of the petitioner as a major part of the crush ing season had come to an end. During the pendency of the appeal for the crushing season 1994-95, petitioner also filed the Writ Petition No. 7698 of 1995 before this Court which is still pending and no relief could be granted to the petitioner.;