- (1.) THE petitioner's factory was acquired under the provisions of U. P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'. The compensation payable under the said Act to the petitioner is required to be adjudicated upon by the Prescribed Authority who, in exercise of quasi judicial authority, is likely to determine the amount of compensation payable. By a notification dated 13th May 1995, the Managing Director, U. P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, was appointed as Prescribed Authority under Section 10 of the said Act. The petitioner, by means of Writ Petition No. 20086 of 1995 had chal lenged the said appointment. By a judgment and order dated 1st September 1995, the said notification was quashed and the respondents were directed to issue fresh notification appointing appropriates authority other than the Managing Director of the Corporation as the Prescribed Authority. By a notification dated 4th Oc tober, 1995, the Cane Commissioner has been appointed as Prescribed Authority under Section 10 of the said Act. The said notification (Annexure T) has been chal lenged by means of the present writ petition.
(2.) MR. Singhal, learned counsel ap pearing in support of the writ petition chal lenged the validity of the said notification on the following grounds: (1) The function of the prescribed authority being a quasi judicial function as a Civil Court following some of the proce dures provided in the Code of Civil Proce dure and the proceeding deeming to be a judicial proceeding for all practical pur poses, the appointment of a District Judge is warranted and that on earlier occasions every time a District Judge was appointed as Prescribed Authority. (2) In the earlier writ petition, on the same ground, the Managing Director of the Corporation being an interested person having interest in the matter to be adjudi cated, the appointment was quashed by this Court and the present appointment also suffers from the said infirmity, namely, that a person can not be a judge in his own cause and that justice is not only to be done but shall also seem to have been done. (3) By reason of procedure prescribed, the State Government may require infor mation from the Commissioner for the pur pose of determining the compensation. As such, the Commissioner who furnishes the information is also a person interested and might develop bias to substantiate the infor mation submitted by him.
(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the Cane Com missioner, by no stretch of imagination, be considered to be a party interested in the payment of compensation to the claimant. The contention of Mr. Singhal. therefore, according to him, is wholly misplaced and misconceived through, however, he does not dispute the proposition of law advanced by Mr. Singhal.;