Violation of principles of natural justice in the allotment of Kammapuram Firka to the third respondent Sugar Mill

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the first respondent in R.C.No.261/Cane2/2019 and quash the same.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the first respondent allotting the Kammapuram Firka to the third respondent Sugar Mill.

2. The petitioners are sugarcane growers in Kammapuram Firka. Earlier they were supplying sugarcane to Shree Ambika Sugars, Pennadam which went into liquidation and thereafter, Kammapuram Firka was annexed as Reserve area to the second respondent Sugar Mill by order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the first respondent. According to the petitioners, the second respondent is a financially sound sugar mill and making payments to the petitioners who are sugarcane farmers on time without committing default. However, according to the petitioners, all of a sudden, despite objections raised by the petitioners, the impugned order dated 01.02.2021 came to be passed by the first respondent under which Kammapuram Firka is allotted to the third respondent sugar mill. According to the petitioners, the third respondent sugar mill is financially unsound and they are defaulters in payment for the supplies of sugarcane effected by the farmers. According to the petitioners, it can be seen that the crushing capacity utilization of the third respondent sugar mill has not at all exceeded 50% from the crushing season of 2016-2017. According to them, because of the improper administration of the third respondent sugar mill and failure to upgrade, there are frequent break downs during every crushing season in the third respondent sugar mill and the third respondent sugar mill hardly functions for at least 45 to 50 days. According to them, if they are made to supply to the third respondent sugar mill, they will not be receiving the payment for the sugarcane supplies on time.

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. According to them, as per the provisions of section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Sugar Cane Factories Control Act, 1949, personal hearing ought to have been given to the occupier and the sugarcane grower before passing such an impugned order. According to the petitioners, the first respondent has misused the power of eminent domain thereby depriving the sugarcane growers' rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. According to the petitioners, the third respondent sugar mill is almost on the verge of being declared as a sick unit. At this juncture, transferring the reserve area from the second respondent sugar mill to the third respondent sugar mill would amount to penalizing the sugarcane growers and thereby, putting them to untold misery and irreparable injury.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent denying the allegations of the petitioners. It is their contention that the impugned order protects the interest of the petitioners as the distance between the sugarcane farms and the third respondent sugar mill is around 25 kms only, whereas the distance between the sugarcane farms and the second respondent sugar mill is more than 50 kms.

6. According to the first respondent, they invoked Rule 6(1)(a) of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 which is applicable to the whole of India and the same was issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. According to them, only in accordance with the said Rule, they are empowered to notify the reserve area. According to them, they have not invoked section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Sugarcane Factories (Control) Act , 1949. According to them, under Rule 6 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, there is no provision of personal hearing for the occupier of the factory of the sugarcane growers. Therefore, there is no misuse of power of eminent do