PRADEEP Kant, Shabihul Hasnain, JJ. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far the grievance with respect to the reservation order passed on 27. 11. 08 with respect to certain other sugar mills, in which allegedly the cane centres, which were allotted to the petitioner-sugar mill in the previous crushing season, have been assigned to other sugar mills is concerned, the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the State Government. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the order dated 1. 12. 08, for which, the petitioner prays for some time. On the objection raised by the respondents that the remedy of appeal is a statutory remedy, the appeal be filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1. 12. 08. However, the grievance of the petitioner that on the one hand the cane centres, which were reserved/assigned to the petitioner-sugar mill in the previous crushing season, have been reserved and assigned to other sugar mills, making almost the entire sugar cane area, which was likely to be given to the petitioner, not available to the petitioner-sugar mill and on the other hand, no reservation order for the present sugar mill has been issued, requires an explanation from the Cane Commissioner indicating the reason for doing so and also the reason as to why the reservation order has not been passed. List this matter on Tuesday, i. e. 16. 12. 08, as fresh. The pendency of the appeal would not affect the earlier pending appeal of the petitioner, which may be decided by the appellate authority expeditiously in accordance with law. It will be open to the Cane Commissioner to pass reservation order in the meantime. .;