- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. In this case an order was passed under Section 15 of U. P. Sugar cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 on 19-10-1995 by which the respondent No. 3 was asked to open a centre at Pitlonkar and the respondent No. 4 was also permitted to open a purchase centre at the same place and the Co-operative society operating in the area was also permitted to make supply to respondent No. 4. Under sub-section (4) of Section 15 an appeal is provided against any order passed under sub-section a ). The respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal, on which the order dated 19-10-1995, as been set aside by order dated 15th December, 1995. This order has been challenged by means of this petition by the petitioners who are individuals. Miss Bharti Sapru, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 raises preliminary objection that this application is not maintainable by the individual growers in view of Section 15 (1) of the Act which provides "that the order under sub-section (1) can be passed after consulting the Factory and Cane growers 'co-operative Society. "
(2.) SRI Vineet Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 on then other hand contends that the respondent No. 4 was not a party in the appeal. Therefore, his rights cannot be affected by reason of the order passed in the aforesaid appeal. A plain reading of Section 15 (1) implies that consultation, which amounts to giving opportunity is to be afforded to the factory and Cane grower's Co-operative society. It is not indicated that the individual cane growers are to be given any such opportunity. It is very difficult to read words in a Statute when plain and simple meaning is unambiguous. In fact, the Legislature had never intended that such opportunity is to be given to the individual cane growers which if exercised would result in un-ending process. Therefore, opportunity has been restricted only to the Co operative society of the growers. Though asked but Sri Vineet Saran in his usual fairness has not been able to make any submission as to the question of maintainability of the said petition by individual growers. On the other hand he has pointed out that since his client has been made a party in the present writ petition, he has a right to challenge the appellate order impugned and support the petitioners. Sri I. P. Srivastava, learned Counsel submits that he has instruction to apply for impleadment on behalf of the Co-operative society and after having been added in the present writ petition, he submits that he will be challenging the appellate order impugned in the present writ petition because of the reason that he is being affected by me said appellate order. In my view the respondent No. 4 as a right to challenge the appellate order even if he was not made a party in the appeal. At the same time Sri I. R Srivastava's client has also a similar right to challenge the appellate order, if he is aggrieved. There is no doubt about the said right. But it is established principle of law that the defendant could not have relief in the suit filed by the plaintiff except as provided under Order VIII, Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure which is not applicable in writ proceeding. Therefore, no relief can be had by the respondents in me writ petition, which they have not preferred as petitioners. There is no bar in finding separate writ petition challenging the appellate order, if they are so advised.
(3.) FROM the impugned order it appears that the appellate authority has recorded that all parties have been heard and given opportunity of hearing. But from the record it does not appear as to who are the parties except that it is recorded that copies be sent to certain person named at the bottom of the said order which includes the Co-operative society but the name of respondent No. 4 does not appear from the said order. Therefore, it can be ascertained that the Co-operative society was given opportunity but it is not possible to ascertain definitely mat the respon dent No. 4 was party to the appeal. Be that as it may, the individual cane growers have no right to claim oppor tunity under Section 15 (1) of the Act. It cannot be said that the right provided under sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act would be available to the individual cane growers. If such an interpretation is given then it will render the entire statute unworkable. Such interpretation which render the statute unworkable, should be avoided. Therefore, in the absence of any such right the individual growers cannot maintain this writ petition, therefore, neither Sri Vineet Saran's client nor Sri I. P. Srivastava's client can have any relief in a non- maintainable writ petition. In that view of the matter the writ petition is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.;