Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) NOTICE on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 notice has been accepted by Dr. R.K. Srivastava, whereas on behalf of respondent no. 5 notice has been accepted by Sri Manish Mathur.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pinaki Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kalra and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. The respondents counsel has raised a preliminary objection saying that the writ petition itself is not maintainable for the reasons firstly; that statutory appeal is provided under Section 15(4) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which has not been filed and secondly; since the period of limitation stands expired and the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of reservation dated 27th November 2008, which had already attained finality, as such entertaining the writ petition at this stage would mean to overcome the limitation against an order which has attained finality by not filing the appeal. Sri Pinaki Misra, learned Senior Advocate, assailing the reservation order dated 27.11.2008 submits that a very small sugarcane area has been allocated to the petitioner without considering the actual requirement of the petitioner factory and in violation of the terms of the MOU between the States of U.P. and State of Uttarakhand. He further submits that total quantity of sugarcane which has been made available is 1.85 lac qtls. whereas in previous years, the petitioner was given a larger quantity of sugarcane. Sri Pinaki Misra further submits that since the allocation of sugarcane area as well as the yield of the sugarcane in the said area is much less than the requirement of sugar factory and every year appeal is filed but to no avail, therefore, it cannot be said that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
(3.) ELABORATING the aforesaid argument he submits that looking to the previous years allocation, this time allocation of sugarcane area and the yield of the sugarcane which is likely to occur is very-very less as against the requirement of the petitioner factory, which is also against the terms of MOU. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 Dr. R.K. Srivastava submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed in the writ petition, the requirement of sugarcane as might have been determined for this year under section 12 of the Act nor the petitioner has given the yield of sugarcane which is in abundance in his area and as such the petitioner will not face any shortage of sugarcane. His further submission is that there is no statement made in the writ petition that what steps for development of the sugarcane area had been taken by the petitioner in the previous years, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim for any additional sugarcane. Their case is that the petitioners have not developed the area given to them earlier, which was their statutory responsibility.;