- (1.) HEARD Sri Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. R. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner has come before this Court praying for the following relief: "i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, to give effect to the Memorandum of Understanding, which has been entered between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of Uttarakhand in order to ensure that adequate quantity of sugar cane as per the requirement of the petitioner company is allotted to it; ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow to give effect to the directions of the Board of Industrial & Financial Reconstruction as per the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme, in particular, the direction issued on 18th March, 2008, read with order dated 14th October, 2008; iii) issue an ad-interim mandamus to the above effect; iv) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; and iv) award the costs of the petition to the petitioner." The cause of action as alleged by the petitioner's counsel for filing the present writ petition is that the State Government has given its mind in an appeal which was filed by another sugar mill namely, Dwarikesh Sugar Mill Bahadurpur, District-Bijnour, against Nadehi Sugar Mill against the reservation order for the year 2008-09 in which the appellate authority expressed that it is not clear from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as to whether the same is to remain in force in perpetuity after 2009. Learned counsel for both the parties have made serious efforts to establish their claim, with respect to existence, validity and continuity or discontinuity of the MOU, but we find force in the argument raised by Sri Mukund Tiwari that no cause of action has yet accrued to the petitioner and on mere apprehension that the Cane Commissioner, while passing the order of reservation, will be guided by the aforesaid observations of the appellate authority, the writ petition can not be maintained. Submission is that the MOU is between the State of U.P. and Uttarakhand and, therefore, it is difficult to say that the petitioner can approach this Court even before an order of reservation has been passed. Further submission is that if any observation has been made by the appellate authority in any appeal in which the petitioner or any other person is not a party, is not binding upon such parties nor on the basis of such observation, a writ petition can be filed. We have considered the arguments and pleas raised in the writ petition and find that merely on the apprehension that the Cane Commissioner whether would accept the MOU or will not not accept its continuity when cane reservation order is to be passed, no writ of mandamus can be issued for interpreting the MOU for the benefit of the Cane Commissioner. Rightly, if any, observation has been made by the appellate authority in a dispute between two sugar mills and as we are informed that the said orders are in challenge in the writ petition, this Court would not enter into that question as the concerned parties are already getting the matter adjudicated in separate proceeding. Needless to mention that the reservation is made afresh in every crushing season. Each crushing season is a new season where the Cane Commissioner is required to pass reservation orders taking into consideration all the relevant factors. The observations thus, made in the case of other sugar mills may not be relevant in the case of present sugar mills or for the subsequent crushing season. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays at this stage that he does not want to press the prayer No.2 as he reserves the right to pursue the said claim before the appropriate forum. Prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the MOU would remain effective even after 2000-01 for all times to come whereas Dr. R. K. Srivastava submitted that it is not automatically effective for subsequent period but in case there is shortage or excess in either of the States of the sugar cane, then the sugar cane can be diverted with the consent of both the parties. We do not intend to enter into this controversy nor find it expedient to express our opinion on the said issue as we have already found that no cause of action has yet accrued to the petitioner. It is for the Cane Commissioner to consider all such pleas as and when the occasion arises i.e. at the time of passing of the cane reservation order. We, thus, do not find any force in this writ petition at this stage which is hereby dismissed, as premature.;