- (1.) D. V. Sharma, J. The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to assign eight centres, namely Lahari. Kusumaha Deoria Maffi, Sikra Bargah, Bhujaini-I, Sajna Khor, Buknar, Umri Ahara and Parsa Hazzam-I, in favour of the petitioner's company and further seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents No. 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to continue to make purchases from the 4 cane centres, namely Lahari Buknar, Sikra Burgah and Kusamah Deoria from where the petitioner has been permitted to make cane purchases during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. At the very outset, it would be apt to mention certain facts as to how this matter has come up before this Division Bench.
(2.) PETITIONER, namely, Balrampur Chini Mills preferred a writ petition bearing No. 354/ms of 2006, inter alia praying for a direction to the respondents to assign 8 centers in favour of the petitioner company. By the judgment and order dated 10th March, 2006 the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10-3-2006 of the learned Single Judge, Basti Sugar Mills Company Limited and another preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court by the order dated 5-5-2006 disposed of the appeal with a direction that the matter shall be heard by a Division Bench de novo keeping in view the scope and ambit of Section 15 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and Rule 22 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954. It was also provided in the order that the Cane Commissioner shall send his report latest by 15th September, 2006 and thereafter the matter should be disposed of by the end of October, 2006. The order dated 5-5-2006 of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as under : "heard learned Counsel for the parties. Leave granted. Considering the special and peculiar circumstances involved in this case which appears to be of perennial character, we dispose of the petition with the following direction and observations : The High Court shall re-hear the matter keeping in view the scope and ambit of Section 15 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and Rule 22 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (in short the 'rules' ). In the meantime, the Cane Commissioner after following the procedure in the aforesaid provisions shall send his report to the High Court latest by 15th September, 2006. Thereafter the High Court shall take up the matter for hearing and is requested to make effort to dispose of the writ petition by the end of October, 2006. It is agreed that in view of the importance of the issues involved, the matter shall be heard before a Division Bench. This order will be operative for the sugar cane season 2006-2007. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. The High Court shall hear the matter de novo taking into account the facts already on record. It shall permit the parties to bring further material on record for effective adjudication of the issues. It goes without saying that since the matter is being remitted to the High Court, the report of the Cane Commissioner has to be given keeping in view the scope and ambit of Section 15 and Rule 22 and uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. The contempt proceedings shall stand quashed. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. " The matter came up before the Division Bench on 28-10-2006 and the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court was produced before us and at the joint request of the parties the matter was postponed for 30-10-2006. On 30-10-2006, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised certain objections to which the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State sought time for filing response and accordingly the date i. e. 2-11-2006 was fixed. On 2-11-2006, an order for producing certain relevant record was passed. On 6-11-2006, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was not available as such the case was adjourned. Thereafter various dates were fixed and at time Counsel were accommodate on account of their busy schedule. Learned Counsel for the parties could conclude their arguments by 30th November, 2006. On the date of conclusion of arguments, learned Counsel for the parties stated that they would like to give written arguments within three days but the same were made available only by 12th December, 2006. It would be relevant to mention here that in compliance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2555 of 2006, Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. , after exercising the power under Section 15 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 read with Rule 22 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954, the instant order dated 14-9-2006 has been passed by the Cane Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh for the supply of sugarcane during the crushing Season of 2006-2007. These orders would be subject to the direction of this Court.
(3.) AT this outset it may be relevant to refer that Cane Commissioner has taken into consideration certain aspects and the comparative tables which are enclosed with the import with respect to Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. , unit Babhnan, District Basti. We find that three separate orders were issued and comparative tables were also enclosed to show as to how he proceeded in the matter and formed the opinion for the supply of sugarcane for the session 2006-2007. The objections to the proposed cane reservation order in respect of Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. , Govindnagar Sugar Mills Ltd. , Walterganj and Babhnan unit of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. , were filed by the petitioner. The relevant objections raised by the petitioner are as under : The Cane Commissioner Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow instead of submitting a report as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court has filed the cane reservation orders in respect to these factories and no reason has been given why a particular center is to be reserved in favour of a particular sugar mill. Thus, he has not given report based on reasons and recommendations and without reasons it is worthless and it does not assist the Court in deciding as to which centre are to be allocated to which sugar mill.;