RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) M /s Malwa Sugar Mills Company Limited, Dhuri, District Sangrur, has filed this writ petition, impugning the orders dated 11.4.1983 (Annexure P-11), dated 2.5.1983 (Annexure P-12), dated 9.5.1983 (Annexure P- 13), dated 18.5.1983 (Annexure P-15) and dated 15.6.1983 (Annexure P-17).
(2.) THE petitioner-Company is running a sugar mill and for the purpose of producing sugar resorted to purchase sugar cane of different varieties from reserved and assigned areas. It is averred that petitioner-Company had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 for purchasing of sugarcane of approved varieties @ Rs. 20/- per quintal and sugarcane variety of COJ 64 at the rate of Rs. 23/- per quintal. The averment reveals that the Company can not purchase sugarcane from outside the reserved and assigned areas and that the petitioner-Company had not entered into any agreement for purchase of rejected/banned varieties of sugarcane. The agreement was allegedly entered between the petitioner-company and the sugarcane growers or sugarcane growers society under the provisions of Control Order. Copy of the agreement is placed on record as Annexure P-2. It is seen that respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12 of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953, declared CO 1158 variety of sugarcane as unsuitable besides imposing ban on its cultivation in reserved and assigned areas of the petitioner-Company. Copy of this notification is at Annexure P-3. Sugarcane year commences with effect from October 1 and ends on September 30 of the succeeding year. In the year 1982, the crushing season started with effect from 31.12.1982 and continued upto 29.5.1983. Petitioner would point out that wide publicity was given by the petitioner-Company in regard to the banned variety of the sugarcane for the farmers so that the said banned variety is not grown by them. Despite, some of the growers still cultivated variety CO 1158 of the sugarcane in the reserved/assigned areas of the petitioner-Company. During the course of purchase, the banned variety of sugarcane was also brought to the petitioner-Company and ultimately about 46726 quintals of said sugarcane variety was purchased from 31.12.1982 to 12.3.1983. It is alleged that the petitioner-Company had lodged a protest with the Cane Commissioner (respondent No. 2) in this regard through its letter dated 5.1.1983. According to the petitioner-Company, this banned variety of sugarcane was purchased by it against its wishes and after protest. Another reason for which the Company stated to have purchased this banned variety of sugarcane was to avoid any ugly law and order situation as non-purchasing would have led to agitation by farmers. Complaint in this regard was made to respondent No. 2 through a letter dated 7.1.1983. The petitioner-Company is stated to have suffered a huge loss on account of this purchase of rejected variety of sugarcane as this variety lead to very less recovery of sugar. Petitioner-Company complaints that still no action was taken by respondent No. 2 for stopping the supply of rejected variety of sugarcane. Some other protest letters were also written by the petitioner-Company alleging that it is being compelled to accept the banned variety being forced by the circumstances etc.
(3.) THE record reveals that this banned variety of sugarcane was supplied by the cane growers at the minimum statutory price of Rs. 14.07 per quintal. The petitioner-Company claims to have suffered great financial loss on account of supply of this banned variety of sugarcane even by offering this price. The Cane Commissioner, however, directed the petitioner-Company to make payment for this variety also at the rate of Rs. 20/- per quintal. This writ petition was accordingly filed impugning the action of the respondents, especially Cane Commissioner, whereby he had issued direction for payment of the minimum statutory price fixed for the sugarcane in respect of variety which is even banned.;