Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. - (1.) M/s. D.S.M. Asmoli, District Shambhal through its Managing Director is before this Court assailing the order dated 16.1.2017 passed by the first respondent i.e. Special Secretary, Sugar Industries and Department of Cane Development, Lucknow/Appellate Authority in Appeal No.361/2016-17 and for direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to lift the sugarcane from the centre allotted to it by the order of Cane Commissioner dated 16.11.2016.
(2.) M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The said company has established an industrial unit namely M/s. D.S.M. Asmoli, District Shambhal for manufacturing sugar through vacuum pan process with the capacity of 9000 TDC (i.e. 90,000 quintals per day). The Cane Commissioner vide his order dated 16.11.2016 passed an order for reserving/assigning cane centres to the petitioner sugar mill. In compliance thereof the petitioner and the Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd., Amroha executed an agreement in Form 'C' on 26.11.2016. As per agreement, the total cane to be supplied to the petitioner was 4.80 lac quintals sugarcane. Similarly third respondent i.e. M/s. Rana Sugar Limited has also established an industrial unit for manufacturing sugar through vacuum process at Belwara, District Moradabad. Aggrieved by the order of Cane Commissioner, the third respondent filed an appeal No.361/2016-17 before the first respondent. By the impugned order dated 16.1.2017 the first respondent has allowed the appeal in question. The dispute giving rise to the present writ petition pertains to the following sugarcane purchase centres, namely (i) Dhyodi @ Hadipur, (ii) Gulariya, (iii) Ramhat, (iv) Dhanhori Aheer, (v) Husainpur and (vi) Aharoi.
(3.) Shri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration the distance of the centres in question between the petitioner sugar mill and the sugar mill of third respondent i.e. M/s. Rana Sugar Ltd., Bailwada, District Moradabad. The third respondent had not paid the price of the sugarcane to the cane growers within time and as such, the Appellate Authority should not have interfered with the order passed by the Cane Commissioner in view of Rule 22 of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Sugar and Purchase) Rules, 1954 ( Rules of 1954) merely on the basis of assurance given by the third respondent. Even at the time of assignment of centres by the Cane Commissioner and at the stage of appeal, the dues of the sugarcane have not been paid to the farmers by the third respondent. It is claimed that the interest of farmers are paramount and fundamental. He had placed reliance on the letter dated 3.11.2016 sent by the District Magistrate, Amroha to the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow requesting the Cane Commissioner not to assign any area in favour of the third respondent. The same has also been ignored while passing the order impugned.;