VIRENDRA KUMAR, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. P.K. Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Mr. Devesh Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) The petitioner has pleaded that Writ Petition No. 12046 (MB) of 2014 was instituted by the petitioner and in the said writ petition this Court observed that whether provisions of financial assistance for Rs. 6/per quintal with the condition to clear entire dues to the farmers for the season 2013-14 by 30.9.2014, which was later extended upto 20.11.2014 is arbitrary, unjustified and discriminatory. In this background the fact that the petitioner has paid the dues in June 2015 and the petitioner had preferred a representation before the Principal Secretary, Sugar Industries with the request for considering extension of scheme of financial assistance to facilitate immediate clearance of cane dues to the farmers to that extent with the assurance that the amount was received under the scheme shall be completely utilized in payment of cane dues. This Court had issued directions to opposite party no. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and after taking into consideration the points raised in the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
(3.) It is also pleaded that opposite party no. 1, while deciding the representation of the petitioner paid no heed to the questions raised by the petitioner and observations made by this Court in judgment dated 3.2.2017 passed in the above mentioned writ petition. The impugned order dated 29.5.2017 has been assailed by the petitioner in this petition, by which representation of the petitioner has been rejected by opposite parties without giving opportunity of hearing as claimed by the petitioner and passed impugned order, which is blatantly arbitrary, illegal and has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice of 'Audi Alteram Partem'.;