The relevant date for the order of the Cane Commissioner declaring a reserved area is the date when the order is actually made and issued, and not the date of its publication in the Bihar Gazette.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This rule laises an interesting point as to the right of the Cane Commissioner to issue an order declaring a reserved area for the supply of cane to the factory as required by Sec.15(1), Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 (Bihar Act VII of 1937), read with Rule 24(1) of the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1938, made by the State Government by virtue of the powers vested in them under Sec.30 of the Act.

2. In this case, the petitioner is a private Limited Company, and, id has a sugar factory at Sugauli in the district of Champaran. It has obtained a rule from the High Court, on an application under Articles 223 and 227 of the Constitution, for a writ, in the nature of certiorari, against the opposite party to call up and quash the order of the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, dated 28-7-1956, purporting to have been issued under Rule 24-A(1) of the Rules, which is annexure G to the application. The petitioner has also asked for a writ in the nature of prohibition, refraining the opposite party from giving effect to the impugned order.

3. Opposite Party 1, who is the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, and, opposite party 3, who is the State of Bihar, have both jointly shown cause against the rule through the learned Advocate General, and have also filed a counter-affidavit Opposite party 2, who is the Cane Development and Cane Marketing Union, Limited, through its Secretary, has also shown cause through Dr. Syed Sultan Ahraad, and also filed a counter-affidavit.

4. The only point presented for determination by Mr. P.R. Das, appearing for the petitioner, is that the order of the Cane Commissioner dated 28-7-1956, under Rule 24-A(1) of the Rules, Annexure G to the petition, is ultra vires. He has attacked this order as without jurisdiction on two grounds:

First, the impugned order dated 28-7-1956, purporting to have been issued under Rule 24-A(1) of the Rules read with the third Proviso to Sec.18(2) of the Act is ultra vires, because the Cane Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue such an order earlier on 28-7-1956, before declaration of the reserved area as required by Sec.15(1) of the Act read with Rule 24(1) of the Rules, which, in the present case, was done on 15-8-1956, when it was published in the Bihar Gazette as required by Rule 24(3) of the Rules; and, Second, the impugned order is without jurisdiction also because the Cane Commissioner before issuing the impugned order under Rule 24-A(1) did not consult "the occupier of the factory for which the area is reserved" at any stage as required by Rule 24-A(1), or, by Sec.15(1) and Rule 24(1).

5. On the first question, the argument put forward by Mr. Das is that in the present case the order of the Cane Commissioner declaring the reserved area, made under Sec.15(1) read with Rule 24(1) was published in the Bihar Gazette on 15-8-1956, and, therefore, that ought to be taken to be the date when the order required by Sec.15(1) and Rule 24(1) was made. That being the position, so rum his argument, the order by the Cane Commissioner has been made after the 1st August which is the dead line fixed by Rule 24-A(1), and, consequently, the impugned order of the Cane Commissioner is ultra vires.

6. The learned Advocate General, whose argument has been adopted by Dr. Sultan Ahmad also, in reply, combated the above contention of Mr. P.R. Das, and submitted that the actual making of the order by the Cane Commissioner, which, in the present case, was 14-7-1956, as will appear from the Bihar Gazette of 15-8-1956 itself, is the relevant date which should be considered to be the date of making of the order as required by Sec.15(1) and Rules 24(1) and 24-A(1), and, therefore, the Cane Commissioner having made the order on 14-7-1956, long before the 1st August, which is the dead line fixed by Rule 24-A (1), the impugned order of the Commissioner was perfectly valid in law. and quite consistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules.

7. For a correct appraisal of