Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a society duly constituted and registered under the Co -operative Societies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a farmer belonging to village Bharal who is also a member of the aforesaid society known as Cane Co -operative Society, Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar. The society consists of the sugarcane growers residing in ninety village. Petitioner No. 2 is a farmer, who is cane grower from village Bharal. Sugar cane grown by the farmers is purchased by the sugar mills. In order to ensure a proper demand and supply between the farmers and the sugar factory engaged in the manufacture of sugar through vacuum -pan -process a legislation has been enacted namely U.P. Sugarcane (Regulations of supply and purchase) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under Section 15 of the Act different arrears are reserved to sugarcane factories from which they are authorised to purchase sugarcane from the cane growers' cooperative societies. For deciding the controversy involved in the instant case it is necessary to refer to the language of Section 15 of the Act which runs as under: - - 15. Declaration of reserved area and assigned area: - - (1) Without prejudice to any order made under clause (d) of subsection 2 of Section 16, the Cane Commissioner may after consulting the Factory and Cane Growers' Co -operative society in the manner to be prescribed: (a) reserve any area (hereinafter called the reserved area) and (b) assign any area (hereinafter called an assigned area), for the purposes of the supply of cane to a factory in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 during (one or more crushing seasons as may be specified) and may likewise at any time cancel such order or alter the boundaries of an area so reserved or assigned. (2) where any area has been declared as reserved a rea for a factory, the occupier of such factory shall, if so directed by the Cane Commissioner, purchase all the cane grown in that area, which is offered for sale to the factory. (3) Where any area has been declared as assigned area for a factory, the occupier of such factory shall purchase such quantity of cane grown in that area and offered for sale to the factory, as may be determined by the Cane Commissioner. (4) An appeal shall lie to the State Government against the order of the Cane Commissioner passed under sub -section (1). From a perusal of the aforesaid provision there is no manner of doubt that the areas are reserved to different factories by the Cane Commissioner after consulting the factory and cane grower's co -operative society. The Cane Commissioner has not been left with the discretion of reserving the areas to different factories without consulting the cane growers' co -operative societies which indicates that their view point has also to be taken into account at the time of reserving the areas to different sugar factories. The object of the legislation appears to be to regulate the demand and supply system of sugar cane to different factories. In the year 1989 -90 the Cane Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh in exercise of power under Section 15 of the Act by order dated 11.10.1989 declared reserved areas to different sugar factories. In the Schedule attached to the aforesaid order it has been mentioned that the areas reserved to Khatauli Sugar Mill namely bharal, Nirpura, Daha and Tabela garhi were reserved in favour of Daurala Sugar works Daurala. It appears that appeal against the aforesaid order dated 11.10.1989 as provided under Section 15(5) of the Act was filed by respondent No. 4 Triveni Engineering Works sugar unit Upper India Sugar Mills, Khatauli, district Muzaffarnagar before the State Government. The State Government by order dated November 10, 1989 set aside the reservation order dated 11.10.1989 passed by the Cane Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the State Government the petitioners have come to this Court in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) I have beard Miss. Bharati Sapru, counsel for the petitioners, and A.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the petition is being disposed of finally under the second proviso to R.2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court at the admission stage. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that in pursuance of the order passed by the Cane Commissioner dated 11.10.1989 the petitioners started supplying their sugar cane to Daurala Sugar Works Daurala but in view of the order passed by the State Government the area reserved for Daurala Sugar Works Daurala has been reversed and the area has now been reserved for Triveni Engineering Works, respondent No. 4 and thereafter Daurala Sugar Works Daurala has stopped the purchase of sugar cane grown by the petitioners which are standing in the fields. The main argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners before me is that the order passed by the State Government dated 10.11.1989 is violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as it was passed without hearing the petitioners. Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently refuted the said argument and contended that the petitioners were not entitled to be heard before the State Government as the lis was between the two sugar factories before the State Government. The language used by the legislature in Section 15 of the Act indicates that the Cane Commissioner while declaring the reserved area and assigning the areas to different sugar factories has to consult the cane growers' co -operative societies before passing the order under Sec. 15 of the Act. If the legislature intended that the Cane Commissioner may pass order after consulting the factory and cane growers' co -operative societies then while reversing the areas assigned and reserved in favour of a particular sugar mill by the Cane Commissioner, the cane growers are also entitled to be heard before the State Government in appeal. In view of the language contained in Section 15 of the Act I am unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were not entitled to be heard. The fact that the petitioners were not heard by the State Government before passing the impugned order dated 10.11.1989. I am of the definite view that the said order is passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed.
(3.) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 10.11.1989 passed by the State Government is quashed and it is directed to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the petitioners and the two sugar factories within three weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order of this Court However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties within forty eight hours on payment of usual charges.;