- (1.) THESE two writ peti tions raise common questions and there fore when they were entertained on 24-11- 1997, counter-affidavits were called from the respondents and in the meantime it was directed by the said interim order that the molasses in stock which was sub ject-matter of the petitioners' contract shall be maintained in tact as it is, until further orders of this Court.
(2.) ON behalf of the petitioners Sri S. R Gupta assisted by Sri K. D. Mishra has been heard at considerable length in sup port of these two writ petitions. Sri Ashok Mehta has been heard on behalf of opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 whereas Sri R. D. Khare has been heard on behalf of O. P. No. 3 U. P. State Sugar Cor poration Ltd. Likewise in the petition No. 39629 of 1997, Sri A. K. Mishra has been heard on behalf of opposite party No. 3 which is U. P. Sahakari Chini Mill Sangh Ltd. Counter-affidavit as well as Sup plementary counter- affidavit has been filed by the respondent to which suitable rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the petitioners. Looking at the fact that the issues involved were of extreme urgency in as-much as the molasses in stock were to be disposed of in accordance with law at the earliest convenience and further that the new stock of sugar cane was to be crushed and huge quantity of molasses was to be produced in the current season, it was directed as prayed by the learned Counsel for the parties that both these writ peti tions be disposed of at the earliest and that is why affidavits have been exchanged and as prayed the writ petitions are being dis posed of by this common order.
(3.) SINCE the factual position in both the writ petitions are same, the word "petitioners" herein will include and refer to the respective petitioners in both the cases. Likewise, thewords "sugar Mill" will include opposite party No. 3, U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. in writ petition No. 39617 of 1997 and U. P. Sahakari Chini Mills Sangh Ltd. in writ petition No. 39629 of 1997. Before coming to the merits in the writ petitions and the arguments and points raised, it may be stated here that the petitioners had applied in response to an advertisement calling tenders for sale of molasses by the Sugar Mills. It is admitted that the petitioners' offer in response to the advertisement was accepted by the Sugar Mills. In pursuance of the aforesaid acceptance of the tender of the petitioners, a sum of Rs. 5, 00, 000 was deposited as earnest money or security money which was Rs. 3, 75, 000 in the other one. It is alleged that the petitioners were permitted to lift 1, 14, 000 and 75, 000 quin tals of molasses respectively, from the mills storage tanks subject to the restric tions imposed by the Act and the Rules. It may be mentioned that all the activities of production, storage, sale, distribution and transporting of molasses is controlled by the Act known as U. P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short Act') and U. P. Sheera Niyantran Niyamawali, 1974 (for short 'the Rules ). It may further be men tioned that the aforesaid Act and the Rules have been framed by the State Government in accordance with the power conferred on it by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'e. G. Act' ).;