Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—According to the contesting parties, both the writ petitions are similarly placed and are connected with each other, therefore, both can be decided by a common judgement having binding effect upon both the matters.

2. In the first writ petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41886 of 2005 following prayers have been made :

“(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to reserve the cane area for the petitioner proportionate to its crushing capacity on a long term basis.

(ii) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) to award cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

3. In the second writ petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76571 of 2005, the petitioner prayed for following reliefs :

"A. That a direction may be given to the Central Government-respondent No. 1 to frame a policy and/or issue guidelines for fixation of drawl percentage at a uniform rate for same area, allotment of cane areas to sugar mills in a non-discriminatory manner so that the area closer to a particular unit are granted to that unit on permanent basis bes