Back
2007 Supreme(All) 772
[2007(4) ADJ 150 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : AMITAVA LALA AND V.C. MISRA, JJ.
D.C.M. SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD., UNIT DAURALA SUGAR WORKS, DAURALA, DISTRICT MEERUT AND ANOTHER ——Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ——Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 41886 and 76571 of 2005,
decided on 23rd March, 2007)
S.P. Gupta, Vivek Chaudhary and Yashwant Varma for the Petitioner/s; Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India, V.B. Upadhyaya, V.K. Upadhyaya, C.B. Yadav, C.S.C., Ravindra Singh, Kunal Rai Singh and Shahid Rizvi for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953—Sections 2(n), 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17—Supply and Purchase Policy—Declaration of Reserved area and Assigned area therefor—Provisions of Section 15 should not be read on piecemeal basis—Entire Act has to be read as a whole—Intention of legislature has to be determined from words used in legislation—Law is explicit while defining ‘reserved area’ and ‘assigned area’—‘Reserved area’ indicates about nature of permanent assignment, ‘assigned area’ indicates about nature of temporary assignment—It depends upon cane growing capacity of farmers and crushing capacity of factories—Both has to be matched with each other—Therefore, neither ‘reserved area’ nor ‘assigned area’ can be fixed—These areas are flexible—If rigidity or permanency is applied to these areas, many adverse effect will arise—As such, no relief can be given to petitioners only due to apprehensions as no cause of action can arise on it. [U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954— Rules 22, 23 and 23-A—U.P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966—Clause 6(1)(b)]. [Paras 7, 35, 39 to 41, 43 and 44]
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 besides guidelines for regulating de-reservation of cane area and allotment to new sugar factories in the State;
B. To issue a writ or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing of the order No. 26/C/Purchase/Reservation/05 dated 8.10.2005 in respect of the petitioner and the order No. 29/C/Purchase/Reservation/06 dated 8.10.2005 in respect of the respondent No. 4 passed by the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, to the extent the reservation orders reserving an area of 3149 Hectares comprised in 14 cane purchase centres of the petitioner to the respondent No. 4, contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition.
C. To issue a writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reserve the 14 cane centers in dispute in favour of the petitioner and/or to reserve the cane centers closer to its factory as detailed in paragraph 32 of the petition.
D. To issue any other writ or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
E. To award the cost of the writ petition.”
4. When the prayer of the first writ petition is cryptic, the prayer of the second writ petition is exhaustive. But basically the dispute relates to reservation of cane area in proportionate to its crushing capacity on a long term or permanent basis. However, we make it clear that except the above issue available in the second writ petition, no other issue has been considered hereunder.
5. Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has drawn our attention to the import of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter called as ‘Act, 1953’) read with the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules, 1954’) and the U.P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter called as ‘Order, 1966’) in connection thereto. The plinth of argument of Mr. Gupta is Section 15 of the Act, 1953, which is as follows :
"15. Declaration of reserved area and assigned area.—(1) Without prejudice to any order made under Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 16 the Cane Commissioner may, after consulting the Factory and Cane-growers’ Co-operative Society in the matter to be prescribed—
(a) reserve any area (hereinafter called the reserved area); and
(b) assign any area (hereinafter called an assigned area),
for the purposes of the supply of cane to a factory in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 during one or more crushing seasons as may be specified and may likewise at any time cancel such order or alter the boundaries of an area so reserved or assigned.
(2) Where any area has been declared as reserved area for a factory, the occupier of such factory shall, if so directed by the Cane Commissioner, purchase all the cane grown in that area, w
