M.Katju and S.L.Saraf, JJ. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Bhafti Sapru for respondent No. 2.
(2.) The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders dated 14.12.1998, 16.12.1998/7.1.1999 and 15.1.1999, copies of which are annexed as Annexures-2. 3. and 4 to the writ petition, passed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner. Saharanpur. These orders, in our opinion, amount to reservation orders passed under Section 15 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953. Under Section 15 of the aforesaid Act, the reservation order can only be passed by the Cane Commissioner. Section 2 (d) of the Act defines the Cane Commissioner as follows : "Cane Commissioner" means the officer appointed to be Cane Commissioner under Section 9 and includes an Additional Cane Commissioner appointed under Section 10" Section 10 of the Act states as follows : "The State Government may appoint any person or designate any Government Officer as Additional, Deputy Assistant Cane Commissioner or Additional. Deputy or Assistant Sugar Commissioner."
(3.) When we read Section 2 (d) along with Section 10 of the Act. it becomes evident that while under Section 10, the State Government can appoint any person or designate any Government Officer, as Additional. Deputy Cane Commissioner or Assistant Cane Commissioner or Additional, Deputy or Assistant Sugar Commissioner, a Deputy Cane Commissioner cannot be treated as a Cane Commissioner. The statute Is very clear. The Deputy Sugarcane Commissioner or Assistant Sugarcane Commissioner cannot pass an order of reservation under Section 15 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. Since they are not included in the definition of Cane Commissioner in Section 2 (d). Since the impugned orders have been passed by Deputy Cane Commissioner, they are clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. The matter being purely one of jurisdiction, there Is no need to call for a counter-affidavit.;